Carbon Crusader or Carbon Cowboy?

By Emmanuel Narokobi

Once again Al Jazeera comes through with a clever and highly illustrative story on our favourite cowboy (other than Clint Eastwood), Kirk Roberts. Juliana Ruhfus takes a galloping ride throughout the country allowing Kirk to give his side of the story which leaves us all to make up our own minds as to whether he is a Crusader or Cowboy in this whole REDD scheme. (Most of you will be familiar with the ever growing comments on our hottest post on this topic here).

But on a larger scale as negotiatons are taking place this month in Copenhagen Juliana states that although talks will be about stopping carbon emissions, it appears less is covered on actually how curbing emissions will be funded. Hence comes the danger in unregulated activities such as what she says is happening in PNG with voluntary carbon trading, because as we all know money talks. Watch the documentary in full for yourself below.


——————————————————————–

For those interested in what’s going on in Copenhagen, here are some good opening speeches:

Advertisements

107 thoughts on “Carbon Crusader or Carbon Cowboy?

  1. ‘Kabon Kaubois’ oa ‘Diwai *Dingos’

    (*see a definition of an Oz dingo below)

    Hi Emmanuel,

    In reference to the Al Jazeera article you have just highlighted on your blog
    I would like to offer a few suggestions.

    Firstly, while those in this program who are depicted as trying to broker
    carbon trading deals with forest owners appear to be Australians, please
    don’t ‘tar’ all Australian’s with the same brush. Not all of us Australians
    tout dubious credentials and even more murky promises of cargo cult type
    wealth to innocent villagers.

    There are three main threads here that are being intentionally intertwined
    for disinformation and personal gain.

    1. Carbon Trading as part of the global concerns about global warming,
    2. Carbon Credits and Carbon Sinks and the promise of free wealth, and
    3. Preserving forests and providing for forest depending people.

    Global Warming and Carbon Trading – Currently being discussed at the
    Copenhagen Conference. In essence, the issue is whether by reducing the gas
    Carbon Dioxide emissions caused by burning carbon (wood, paper, coal,
    petrol, dung, or by millions of people breathing, etc.) we can reduce the
    current global warming and so prevent the Earth’s climate changing. The
    theory is that ‘Developed’ countries will have to reduce their emissions or
    be fined and that ‘Developing’ countries will be allowed to continue to
    pollute the world because they should be permitted to catch up to the
    developed countries in economic power.

    Currently at Copenhagen, a spanner has just been thrown into the works by a
    small Pacific country (Kiribati) who has suddenly realised the ‘con’ in this
    proposal that by allowing China and India (err.. sorry, developing
    countries), to continue to produce more and more emissions is not going to
    stop global warming. Their Islands will disappear anyway.

    Carbon Credits (or Emissions Trading Schemes), is a concept that is being
    bandied around as a methodology for reducing Carbon Dioxide (CO2). The idea
    is that those producing CO2 by burning carbon to produce energy in the form
    of electricity or to run industry and commerce be ‘fined’ for doing so. The
    money so gained from this ‘fine’ (read new tax), will be simplistically
    ‘given’ to those people who can use their naturally occurring assets (e.g.
    forests, crops, etc.), to absorb this carbon dioxide. In addition and by way
    of disinformation, this concept is also being touted as a way to preserve
    existing forests as it is claimed, rich countries will pay poor countries to
    not log their forests. No rationale is offered as to how this will stop
    people selling their trees once the credits are paid out however.

    Preserving forests for forest owners – This is an entirely separate argument
    and should not be confused with the previous two issues. Forests owners must
    be educated in the benefits of retaining their forests rather than selling
    them off for a pittance and then suffering from the effects of not having
    their previously available resource.

    What is clearly portrayed in the Al Jazeera program are ‘Kabon Kaubois’ who
    are promising wealth and services to people who have no real idea of what
    the actual global issues are. These charlatans are clearly in cahoots with
    other PNG ‘people’ of dubious character who also see a chance of hopping in
    on the new wealth game in town. e.g. Selling bogus Carbon Credits and
    skimming 10% or more of the millions being bantered around by corporations
    desperate to claim they are reducing their carbon footprints. Enter the PNG
    government who quite naturally see its role as receiving any millions or
    billions on offer, on behalf of the PNG people. Whether any of this
    potential windfall ever reaches the actual owners of the forests is
    questionable, given the current situation whereby all government monies seem
    to disappear before they actually achieve any real benefits to the people at
    the kunai roots.

    What these Australian “dingoes’ are actually promising is to negotiate a
    direct deal between CO2 producing countries and the PNG forest owners. In
    this they have no legal right to do so as this is a government
    responsibility. They are promising potential benefits to the people at
    village level when they have no intention nor ability to make these anything
    happen. If they ever did receive any money themselves, will they then go
    back to the village people and spend their money in ensuring the village
    people get what was promised them? i.e. Services, roads, airstrips, etc. I
    don’t think so.

    So rather than calling the people who are trying to gain a share in a cargo
    cult type wealth scheme as Kabon Kaubois, I prefer to refer to these people
    as ‘Dinki Dai Diwai Dingoes’. That’s Oz for ….. well you get the idea.
    ________________________________________________________________

    Courtesy of the Macquarie Dictionary
    dingo

    /’dinggoh/ noun, plural dingoes, dingos.

    1. the Australian wild dog, Canis familiaris dingo, introduced by the
    Aborigines, often tawny-yellow in colour, with erect ears, a bushy tail and
    distinctive gait, and with a call resembling a howl or yelp rather than a
    bark; native dog.

    2. -a. a contemptible person; coward.

    b. one who shirks responsibility or evades difficult situations.

    verb (i)

    3. to act in a cowardly manner.

    verb (t)

    4. to shirk, evade, or avoid; to spoil or ruin.

    phrase

    5. dingo on someone, to betray someone.

    [Australian Aboriginal; Dharug din-gu domesticated dingo]

  2. Hi Paul,
    I seem to like your rational on the carbon trading subject. Point 2&3 with elaborations are dead spot on, except I have to disagree on point #1 with this theory below:
    ” that ‘Developing’ countries will be allowed to continue to
    pollute the world because they should be permitted to catch up to the
    developed countries in economic power.”

    Firstly your theory is your own notion and never a theory. The world is looking at ways to reduce global warming that includes both developed and developing. The developing should be allowed to develop, the advantage is, they are fully aware of the current global warming plight, hence it is dependent on the world bodies & governments to design reduction measures.

    Your illustration of China & India as developing nations who should be allowed to pollute in the game of catchup development as portray by Kiribati’s doom is irrelevant. Your comparing statements of CO2 emission source from human beings is cheap rhetoric, as you can’t quantify and if you did, humans CO2 emissions would definitely be the lowest.

    The good thing being a developing nation is, in the name of development, Global warming is realised as a looming plight for the planet and the necessary measure to control & reduce the emission can be decided on by the world body and adopted by developing governments.

    You have to agree that the only effective way of preventing overheating of the world is the REDD scheme. If we play blame game & categorise major polluters, surely developed countries would top the list. I therefore, like the notion that developed countries should reduce emissions & be fined!!!

  3. Hi Kafu,

    Thanks for your feedback and of course, you’re right. Every situation is viewed from one’s own perspective. The point you make about so called developed countries having to reduce their emissions is well made. I don’t have any argument with that. What I suggest is the problem is that the corporations and multinationals that are producing CO2 when they fabricate all their consumer goods are not being made to change to low emission products. Consumers must therefore use what is available and have no alternatives. To say that the millions who live and work in cities that they should downsize their use of electricity is a convenient argument however what alternatives are being offered to these people by their governments? To have people pay more for their consumer goods but at the same time, promise to reimburse lower income people for the increase in costs is simply the government taking with one hand and giving back with the other. i.e. “Blessed be the name of the government” etc. Yet this is what Australians are being told what will happen by the Rudd government. Where’s the sense in that unless you want big government?

    Developing countries will still have to pay for the new taxes imposed on Developed countries through the increased cost of consumer goods and food products. Where will this extra money come from? From the profits of businesses who produce the products? I don’t think so? They can only survive by passing on the costs of production to the consumer. All an extra tax will do is to start the inevitable round of a dog chasing it’s tail. The rich NEVER pay. It’s always those who can least afford to pay for alternatives or for high priced accountants and lawyers. Another aspect is the increase in those (Dingoes) who see a quick buck and want to hop on the gravy train. If the answer to global warming is to ‘fine’ developed countries, what happens to these fines? The answer for some appears to be that this money will somehow, mystically appear in the pockets of the general population in developing countries. If that MIGHT happen, and there are some cynics around who would point to history as a rebuttal, what would these people then do with this ‘windfall’ cash? Pay for consumer goods and food rather than produce their own. Where would that get them? Straight into an ongoing round of poverty. It has been suggested that PNG has largely escaped the recent Global Financial Crisis because the majority of people were not part of a money economy. By that I mean that many people in rural PNG still produce most of what they consume. What happens when people stop producing what they need because they might be able to buy it? Look at what happens when landowners are paid for the use of their land? Where has this actually helped develop a society? Look at Nauru as a classic example.

    The point that I make about CO2 emissions is merely to illustrate to those who think CO2 is some kind of poison. CO2 is not in itself the enemy. Increased CO2 will not actually hurt the world and the world has had fluctuating levels of CO2 and O2 over the millennia. The real difference is that the world’s population has never been so large or wide spread and so threatened because of the reduction in plant life caused by human activities. Trying to quantify emission levels is like trying to assess each tree’s growing difficulties when the forest as a whole is under threat. Everyone should have the opportunity to develop however if the world’s now largest emitter of CO2 (China) and other developing economies is given preferential treatment (and ignoring the perceived unfairness aspect), what is going to stop the exponential increase in emissions? That was the logical argument I was raising. The actual question about the end result was raised by Tuvalu. I wondered who had read the report and would spot the obvious error.

    As to agreeing that there is only one way to stop global warming, I’m sorry mate but that is like King Canute saying to the waves, “I order you to stop!” We may be able to stop polluting our environment but this warming phase in our planet’s history has happened before and will happen again. To say that the only way to stop this process is to save the world’s fast diminishing forests from disappearing excludes many other highly effective strategies. I wholeheartedly agree with the idea of saving the forests but it will not change reality.

    The point I make about humans breathing is just that. The world has never had so many humans and the total world population is set to double in less than 30 years. All these extra humans are creating huge impacts on the environment including the removal of much of the natural processes that soak up CO2. Yet nothing is being done to look at this significant aspect of the total picture. Why? Because that’s too hard and it’s easier to blame something else. Anything really. Just create a scare campaign and have people forget about the real issue.

    Poroman, don’t ever give up thinking about what the answers are. No one ever has them all.

  4. Hi Paul, I was in no way blaming Australians in general for anything. I think the Al Jazeera story makes it obvious that this lonesome cowboy is in a league of his own.

    But thanks for the discussions, I never really thought about the population impact in relation to climate change. So basically we’re expecting to have our cake and to eat it as well if population numbers are not included in the climate debate.

    So maybe a global one child per family policy for all nations in the world for 10 years to give our global resources a breather because it would only be good for everyone as a whole. Think of it:

    1. The less people around the less usage of resources.
    2. The less people around the less wars and fighting over land.
    3. The less people around the more money to go around.
    4. The less people around the higher wages will be because of scarce manpower.

    Paul, I think you’re on to something there…

    1. Interesting comments from Dr Wari Iamo with no sustance and no commercial value other than his relationship with the Australian Government people viewed in the clip.
      I wonder if Wari Iamo still works for the DEC within the next 2 weeks?
      He most definatley does not work ‘now’ for the OOCC.
      I persume he is still chairman for Forestry, but anything can happen in PNG.
      The same ‘old’ bloggers writing the same old thing , “” except”” population!!!
      Believe it or not the quality of people, needs to be monitored it sounds horrible but it is a fact in this day and age as in the centries before .
      Roberts and his Landowners are in front of everyone and has multi million dollar contracts ready to be exchanged on registration of credits.
      He thinks that the whole thing has become a joke full of idiots and the COP15 is even simply another way for the EU to try and con money from countries like PNG.

      I enjoy talking with Roberts as his knowledge is so interesting and his speculations have always been correct.
      he saids’
      Remember a dingo cant bark but it sure can bite, so his comment is that most involved are cross bred mongrels who can only bark.

      He also quoted this morning that this lonesome cowboy is more like a lonesome wolf’ and the poppies are growing higher as the whole issue is a matter of money ha ha.

  5. Thanks Emmanuel,

    You’ve just underlined the real issue that the world’s governments are too afraid to confront. Why? Well, there are implications that are highly emotional and as I suggested in another post, once you get bogged (or is it blogged?), down in an emotional argument, logic tends to take a dive out the window. Cultural norms are also a minefield that no one wants to walk into. A few years ago, Prince Philip, the Duke of Edinburgh, a person not noted for his tactful outbursts, said that the world’s problem was not a resource problem but one of overpopulation. Naturally, all those who found this culturally unacceptable howled him down. No one except the Chinese have ever had the guts to tackle the problem head on.

    In the previously called ‘Western World’ that has now been renamed the ‘Developed World’, the population increases have depended on immigration. Parents who find an increasing burden on providing for children have started having far less that it takes to maintain their culture. Many in Europe are now concerned that their culture will disappear in the foreseeable future due to those of a differing culture and who have recently arrived and are having a large families. Traditional social security arrangements previously introduced to help those who are genuinely in need have now been used to support large families where little or no work can be found.

    Imagine what would happen if PNG was steadily infiltrated by large numbers of a totally different culture who then demanded PNG people change their ways or move over. PNG people would feel threatened and get very frustrated. Take a look over your western border to see what can happen.

    The world’s population has doubled in the last 30 years from 3 billion (U.S. billion anyway) to 6 billion and is due to double again in less than another 30 years unless something happens to change this trend. PNG population increases are in line with these figures. In 1975 when we still conducted annual Census Patrols, PNG’s population was nearly 3 million. I understand the PNG population is now around 6 million. I have read reports in the PNG press by educated and clear thinking PNG people who have warned against the population increasing past the point where the available resources can be sustained.

    In his book ‘Collapse’, Prof. Jared Diamond effectively portrays what happens when a population explodes past the point where the available resources can support it. The previous answers to overpopulation are warfare, disease, famine and all the associated miseries. Look at the island nation of Haiti today as an example of unsustainable population growth.

    The key to the problem is sustainable living. As a race, we humans should be able to learn from the past and plan for the future. The problem is that where some can’t or won’t plan for the future through either omission or commission, others say “What the heck! Why should we deny ourselves when others don’t?” Governments and politicians who depend on being elected simply pass the buck and try to divert attention away from what they know are the real issues. In this ‘Climate of uncertainty’ and misinformation, false prophets arise like the old ‘snake oil salesmen’ and try to capitalise on people’s fears and lack of awareness.

    If this sounds terribly familiar, its because it happens again and again when people turn their back on history and are therefore doomed to repeat it.

    PNG’s natural resources have supported a fairly static population for thousands of years. Sure warfare, disease and the occasional famine naturally helped keep the populations fairly much stable however traditional birth control practices also helped. The other reason preventing overpopulation was the type of traditional agriculture being coupled with a hunter/gatherer regime. This traditional PNG culture that had been developed over thousands of years and depended on the available resources. It didn’t encourage a large, unsustainable increase in the resident population as almost everyone had to be constantly involved with food production and collecting.

    When a population starts producing more food than it needs, populations start expanding. Broad acre farming currently allows some ‘developed nations’ to produce far more food than their current population needs. The advent of modern broad acre farming was only made possible with the invention of fuel burning machines. Other ‘developing nations’ that are having great difficulty producing enough food for their current population and therefore don’t currently use large amounts of fossil fuel. This has resulted in the almost total destruction of these developing nations natural food producing resources. Some African countries cannot now grow any trees as all available timber has been cut to burn in cooking fires. Animal dung is now the only fuel available to cook food. These countries have become virtual deserts due primarily to over use of the natural resources by humans. It is reported that some coral reefs in Asia are now so over fished and scavenged as to be virtually dead. 2,000 years ago, North Africa used to be the grain bowl of the Roman Empire until it was over farmed and turned to mostly into desert. Why don’t we learn?

    What I have sought to do is to raise awareness of the problems associated with over population. One of these problems is that whenever a natural phenomena like climate change occurs, there are now huge numbers of people who are affected simply because their are now huge numbers of people around. When the last Global Warming happened around 1,000 years ago, no one was really concerned. Why? Because there were a lot less people who would be affected. When the island of Krakatoa blew up in to 1880’s, it was estimated by the Dutch authorities in what is now Indonesia, that 40,000 died in the subsequent tsunami. Contrast that with the recent tsunami when over 250, 000 people died in exactly the same areas affected. Why the increased death toll? Because there are now more people living in the region.

    So where does PNG and her remaining forests come into this equation? Broad acre farming in the tropics is not the way to go. The traditional gardens that PNG farmers created are a masterly way of mixing different food crops (Taro, Kaukau, Bananas, Ananas, etc.) with food provided from the forests (Karuka, Galip Nuts, bush meat etc.). This type of food production sustained PNG populations for thousands of years. Tropical forests are now under threat from large scale Palm Oil and Tapioca plantations that offer a quick buck to the current landowners but in fact provide far less for these people in the long run than if they had left their trees alone. This also applies to offers from foreign timber companies who provide no long term benefits once the small amount of payment for the removal of the forest has been spent. The PNG government is quick to point out the benefits to PNG of developing these industries yet fails to point out the down side. Everyone in power seems to be there for the launch and photos in the press. No one seems to want to know when the people go hungry and promised services and benefits don’t appear. PNG people are asking why is this so yet there does not appear to be anyone who can publically enunciate the real causes.

    When I lived on Cocos (Keeling) Islands, I saw first hand the effects of where (prior to Australia buying him out in 1978), Clunies-Ross bull dozed all the available forests of wonderful and naturally occurring Ironwood trees into the ocean in order to plant a broad scale crop of coconuts. Much of the islands are now overgrown with thousands of useless coconuts and the Cocos Malay people hunt for any small pieces of Ironwood they can find to create beautiful carvings that tourists will avidly buy for large sums of money.

    All this should and would have nothing directly to do with Global Warming, Carbon Trading, etc. and all the other distractions that are currently being debated. The trouble is, its far too easy to shift attention away from the real issues than to confront the world leaders head-on. Blame something or someone else for something you yourself need to confront is far easier when people ALLOW you to get away with it.

    How long will the people of PNG and Australia allow this current smoke and mirrors campaign of misinformation to continue? Now that’s the question?

    Gross apologies to everyone for being so long winded.

    Toksave bilo mi pinis nau. Apinun olgeta.

  6. But wait, there’s more…. News Flash

    The PNG Post Courier reports (see below) PNG Political climate changes are now at the whim of the Prime Minister and the his team of National Executive Conspirators sorry.. Council. Why go the Copenhagen to discuss climate changes when they are alive and well and already happening in Waigani? No funds available for rural services, education, hospital drugs, roads, etc. Good heavens! How can that be? Well….

    K5 million for overseas climate change consultants, not selcted using approved selection guidelines. No mention on who these people are or what their qualifications consist of.

    K2 -3 million for 30 PNG Climate Change delegation that going to Copenhagen two days late.

    K3.2 to be paid out for redundancies for the staff of the OCC&ES

    K7.5 million to re establish OCC&ES functions within the Dept of Environment and Conservation.

    and a law suit over the sacking of the previous CEO of the now defunct OCC&ES

    Is there any wonder where the constant stream of missing millions of government Kina are disappearing to? Its called ad hoc management or ‘make it up as you go’ on a grand scale.

    Will the current PNG government next be advertising worldwide consultancies on ‘tips about how to mismanage your government without really trying’?

    Still the 30 PNG attanedees will be able to mix with the reported 114 Australian delegation that is apparently required to attaned this event as well. One wonders exactly what these vast numbers of attendees will achieve that hasn’t already been written up in the final communiqué by each nation prior to attending?
    ______________________________________

    News
    Friday 11th December, 2009

    Copenhagen embarrassment

    By JONATHAN TANOS

    PAPUA New Guinea’s credentials as a developing country and leading advocate of climatic change in Copenhagen are in shatters.
    Foremost is the officially “unannounced” abolition of its own Office of Climate Change and Environmental Sustainability (OCC&ES) just weeks before the Copenhagen meeting unlike all international major players including the United States (US), China, Japan, Britain, Germany and other leading industrialised countries.
    The Government never officially announced the abolishing of the OCC&ES.
    And despite PNG’s sterling performance during the 2005 Bali meeting in Indonesia with the Prime Minister, Sir Michael Somare, outplaying his bigger global leaders on climate change initiatives, PNG has just made an “about-turn” abolishing its own office.
    In addition the Government is spending K5 million on overseas climate change consultants, and is paying K2 million less at K3 million for the total cost of PNG;s 30-member delegation to Copenhagen. And just before the delegation was endorsed, K3.2 million was approved to be paid out to 70 former staff of the (OCC&ES), who must now find new employment opportunities elsewhere.
    In addition Finance Secretary has been directed by the National Executive Council (NEC) to appropriate K7.5 million to establish functions of the OCC&ES within the Department of Environment and Conservation. Under the same direction the former functions of the OCC&ES will be controlled by the Office of the Prime Minister and the NEC under the new management arrangements.
    Coupled with all that, the Government is faced with a law suit from former chief executive officer (CEO) of OCC&ES, Dr Theo Yasause, whose contract of employment was declared null and void by the NEC over alleged breaches of Section 193 of the Constitution and consequently the Public Services Management Act.
    The PNG delegation will leave today, two days late from the opening of the global summit. Both the Government and the Opposition sources confirmed to the Post-Courier yesterday that the National Executive Council (NEC) wavered provisions of the Public and Finance Management Act to engage its overseas consultants to provide PNG advice for the Copenhagen meeting without going through the Public Services and Tenders Board (PSTB). In relation to PNG’s Copenhagen talks, sources said it had been diminished by its abolition of the OCC&ES. In Waigani, NEC documents show directives to the Department of Personnel Management to abolish all OCC&ES positions, declare a redundancy situation and retrench all officers. The documents also shows that the former responsibilities of the OCC&ES be undertaken by the Office of the Prime Minister and NEC. A directive was given to Finance Secretary, Simon Tosali, to find the money required to effect payments for Copenhagen and the K3.2 payout for former OCC&ES employees.
    The Secretary for Environment and Conservation with the Secretary for Personnel Management re-organise the top structure of the OCC&ES to finance its continued services with financing to be derived from the PM’s Department and NEC.

      1. G’day Tim,

        Never said they weren’t mate, but you’d be hard pressed to find a full blood dingo anywhere near a city these days. Roaming wild dogs are a pest and won’t be tolerated by any sensible farmer. You try debating the alternative with a farmer who is trying to keep his animals alive in the worst drought in living memory and then sees his livelyhood being attacked by wild dogs or domestic dogs that are hunting in packs. Just because they are nice and friendly when at home doesn’t mean domestic cats and dogs that are allowed to roam are always that way. Look at the millions of native animals that are killed each year by these pests and their irresponsible owners who can’t see the problem.

        Of course, most city slickers wouldn’t know the difference and think their meat and milk comes from the supermarket anyway.

        Where do you live Tim and what’s your problem?

      2. Paul,
        I come from the upper Hunter Valley NSW where my family has owned large properties at one time we worked 4,000 breeders of well bred beef cattle.
        I now spend a lot of time in PNG, Indonesia and Pacific Islands.
        I represent and report to concerned philanthropist’s from around the world who are interested in the real stories and the true facts of the management of the planet.
        Of course the actions of some induviduals has taken the interest of many I represent and Kirk Roberts in PNG has a tremdous following around the world.
        The advancement of his organisation is incrediable and to acheive the present position status of validation for PNG is second to none.
        If my attitude tends to be short communicating through these blogs, I am sorry.It is just the information and converse is going no where and so much is incorrect.
        Please Paul regarding wild dogs and Dingos I am very educated regardin, however the most feard though is the 2 legged Dingo that sneaks around sticking its nose in where it does not understand, I wounder how much their bounty should be.

  7. SBS Senior Correspondent Brian Thomson has been in PNG making a series of stories about carbon trading scandals. His second report was on SBS news tonight (don’t know if it is posted yet but below is a link to the first story)

    Kirk Roberts features heavily, but refused to be interviewed However a local landowner reveals that he was threatened at gunpoint to sign a “voluntary agreement” for Roberts. The implication was that Roberts has bribed police and officials and conned local landowners to get agreements signed before there is any legal or policy framework for such things. Looks like some more of the media (apart from Ilya) are on to Roberts and his con-tricks, along with the schemes of Carbon Planet and Nupan.

    http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/1149532/PNG%27s-anti-deforestation-plan

    1. Apparently,,,,, and now we have been shown the evidence that……
      the landowner in question has been influrenced by the logging company to forge documents and make statements of such to the media.
      The landowner has now completed documents under oath, that everything he stated and said was mischievous false and deliberate to defraud.

      It just goes to show how much damage the media does, just to sell a story, Brian Thompson and the media again have just created and promoted confusion from logging companies.

  8. Thank you olgeta for great contributions here.

    Paul Oates has brought out the underlying reason for depleting resources the world over; population & its exponential growth. It is clear that the COP15 and the world body’s attempt to endorse REDD is because there is exponential depletion of resources by the equally demanding populace. Hence, we are faced with the dilemmas of Global Warming, harmful green house gases etcetra etcetra.

    Thanks Paul, but with my notion that REDD could be an effective way of curbing Global Warming is twofold. Firstly with the indoctrination of western culture, nobody will reject money which is sought by all means by the populace & secondly, conservation advocacy; money can do anything, right? It’s probably the best hope for environment & conservation. What’s happened, happened, so humans as intelligent beings can solve this chaos it put itself into.

    Now if we look also from another angle of why the world population growth is exponential is largely because improved health systems. So we have some old dogs living longer on earth from whence they should be making way for the maturing puppies. Unless humans introduce a deadlier virus than AIDS, how can the cycle of population balance be maintain, hence corresponding effect on world’s current issue plus others. China’s one child policy is not proving too effective…maybe in addition to COP15 goal, the committees should pass one child policy for the world & stop advancement of health science.

  9. Hi Kafu,

    the problems of overpopulation have not yet been fully recognised by most people and that is the real issue. People are being misled for a number of different reasons and their attention diverted away from this actual issue in order to control them by fear and scare tactics. No matter what we do, we cannot stop the current warming phase of the world. Governments are now preparing to say to their very concerned people, “Well, we tried to do something and we weren’t able to do enough’. Wait for it. It will be the next ‘cop out’ on the table.

    What is not being highlighted are the reports that Europe is purchasing large tracts of arable land in Africa to produce food for the next generation of Europeans. These are the next decade of European people who will not be able to fed from their own diminishing resources for food production. But what about the local African people one must ask? What happens to the palm oil from PNG Palm Oil plantations. Does it go towards feeding PNG people or is it shipped overseas? What do the traditional owners of the land where the plantations are now receive in royalties and is it enough to live on, send their children to school and provide for the future? Are all the fish caught in PNG exported overseas or retained in PNG? Is anyone actually checking on what is happening or are people merely trusting their own leaders to look out for them.

    Another extremely important issue is the finite amount of fresh water available in the world for the increasing populations. As an example, China has now funded and is building a large dam on the White Nile in Ethiopia to help that country with food and electricity production. This dam will restrict the annual flood that for thousands of years, people all along the River Nile have depended on to produce crops, provide fish and feed livestock. Millions will be affected if the annual floods now don’t happen. What will the people in Sudan and Egypt do when the inevitable happens? People should be asking this now but are they being told what is happening? If not, why not?

    The worrying trend to me is the concept of so called ‘rich’ nations paying ‘fines’ to so called ‘poor’ nations. Currently at Copenhagen, Europe is now talking billions in payments already and the coalition of ‘poor’ nations is crying that it’s not enough. Do I hear some echoes of this argument nearer to home?

    Since when did long term payments ever improve the lot of those who are supposed to be receiving the money? Look at PNG today after 34 years of Independence and billions in overseas (boomerang) aid?

    What will any money extracted from so called rich nations be used for? Well, look at the current situation with oil revenue. What oil rich country has either a rich population or is immune from either slothful waste, revolution and warfare? Sure there are seemingly a few exceptions like Brunei and the Emirates at Dubai but is everyone else happy, free and rich? I don’t think so.

    Mostly, any money derived from non productive labour automatically goes in one of two directions. Firstly, it encourages the spivs and worse to defraud their countrymen and women and live in luxury (read consumer goods) at their people’s expense (look at the current crop of world dictators like the one in Zimbabwe). Secondly, if some money actually reaches those at the grass roots, the people stop working at maintaining their living conditions and spend it all on consumer goods. Where do these consumer goods come from? Why from the so called rich countries who will just get their money back by selling the consumer goods they make. Where’s the benefit in that except to the multinationals who currently influence or fund their governments. Look at Nauru for a classic example of this happening. A once rich nation in personal and national wealth is now bankrupt. The lesson is: If you don’t work for it, you don’t appreciate it and you forget how to earn a living when you have to.

    Poroman, what I used to say to people in the villages was: “Inogat narapla rot long girap. Hatwok tasol eminap!”

    1. Paul,
      Congratulations you are now getting on the right track, stay there.
      I feel so much better the penny has finally dropped.

      That is why each forest area must stay with the owners ILG’s under their Incorporation.
      Each Incorporation thens develops their forest area for Carbon Trading for its best possible yield.

      1. Well Tim, at least I’m up front with my name and I don’t beat around the bush. You’re very lucky to have had a past connection with the country. What do you actually do now however?

        As to your assertion about two legged dingos, I couldn’t agree more and your statement only seems to confirm my original contention. If, as you say, the discussion is going nowhere, why is it you continue to debate what is being said here and add the occasional dig at me?

        Unlike you, I only represent myself and have no ulterior motive. My only concern is that the people of PNG are as informed and educated as possible about all the issues before they make their own decisions that will affect them and their descendents for a long time. The posts on this blog by educated Papua New Guineans reveal a genuine interest in finding out all the issues involved with Carbon Trading. I commend Emmanuel for encouraging the discussion with this in mind.

        In the Aljazeera program at the start of this thread, the discussion the journalist had with those people in the villages clearly reflects their lack of knowledge about all the issues involved in the Carbon Debate. If the philanthropists you claim to represent are really trying to help the local forest owners, why don’t they and you come out and plainly declare who you all are and what everyone’s position is? To not do so confers either a distinct air of conspiracy or maybe a certain ingenuiness about your position don’t you think?

        Over to you mate. What have you got to hide?

  10. Paul,
    Tim is my name and I am up front as you.I just dont go on and on and wavier from the track as you, not a dig Paul just a fact.
    I have no other ulterior motive, you have a bad habit of persuming incorrectly.
    I explained my position and occupation clearly.
    The philanthropists have not claimed to help local forest owners at this stage, although their well being as their enviroment is of course a concern to all.
    The philanthropists however are very concerned how the planet is managed and are concerned with some Governments and World leaders competance,
    COP15 and PNG are perfect examples of the concerns.
    I should refresh your memory in PNG middle 2008 were everyday was a news paper article regarding Voluntary Carbon Trading.
    Suddenly now Wari Iamo’s Government whoever that may be ,saids the developers or developer will be prosecuted.

    Roberts is correct in his practice as I have been able to understand his logic although complicated but correct.
    Directly he has ignored the confusion and travelled forward accuratley and swiftly,he has brillant minds working for him and has a following of revenue to cope with the issues ahead.
    The format that the World is trying to persuade is not correct for PNG it cannot work it also will be political suicide for the Government of the day or any other Government who would promote it.
    Paul this for you to follow, example check out the history status of UN and in this case UNFCCC, have a look at their comments at COP15.

    It has no money it is only envolved to make money full stop.

    EU through Prince Charles are procrastinating to deliver $ what ever, when, what , how,?It is just something positive to say, but where are the proper commercial procedures to support the announcement, again it will never happen.
    It will fail as the G8 or 22###
    The developer has always said it is now time for PNG to stand up on its own and do away with these charitable hand outs, his structure is sound and within a decade PNG will be a place to be, before most other countries on the planet.

    The people probed have never been consulted or have any opputunity of awareness sessions.I have wittnessed the developers project areas and the people are very informed.Its not lack of knowledge,its just not educated.
    I believe the developer will be heading to the Mandang area in middle January 2010 to help these people.
    I have nothing to hide and as you PNG has its best interests with my associates and myself and because of Roberts a large part of the World.

  11. Olaman! Mi belhevi long ol wantok tasol. Mi nogat narapla tingting. Nogut ol wantok inogat planti save long bikpla piksa bilong diwai na bihain bai oli mekim wanem long displa samting a? Sapos oli gat planti save long ol olgeta samting bilo displa samting bihain bai olinap mekim gutpla sindaun bilong ol, laga?

    Mi nogat bikpla bisnis na mi nosave wokabaut igo long as ples bilong ol wantok na tokgris. Mi kamautim toksave bilo mi yet. Inogat narapla bikman istap baksait long mi na mi no inap kisim planti balus na kamigo long planti hap graun. Mi lapun man bilo asgraun bilong mi na mi lukautim ol diwai na bulamakau bilo mi tasol. Mi lukim pasin bilo ol nabaut na mi wanpela itokaut tasol. Sapos oli kam tokgris wantaim mi bai mi askim em olsem , “Yu bin mekim wanem samting pastaim a? Yu bin gerapim wanem samting long halivim ol wantok bipo?”

    Ol wantok, oli no longlong. Olinap skelim husat itoktok giaman na husat itoktok stret. Bihain bai yu save aiting.

  12. Hi Paul,
    Much of what you said ’bout the never ending cycle of dog chasing its tail in this business of ‘supply and demand’ has got me pondering deeply about the issue at hand, CARBON TRADE & REDD. It is true that depletion of resources on this planet is due to demand by its inhabitants. As per your illustrations, if we stop developing countries from earning their living esp the forest nations, then who supplies their other needs like food & clothes? It is also clear that money schemes thru carbon trade is gonna be a ‘bomerang’ because we will be spending the money back to the developed countries.

    I can sense you openly detest ‘no sweat money’ which to you is something like a cargo cult. I am in favour with you on this, that I think earned money has alot of blessing, but don’t you think subsistence cultivation over time does reduce forest? Forest management methods does not effectively hold against demand.

    Coming back to the worldly plight of Global Warming & the witch hunting for disposal sink holes for these contributing harmful gases, What would be your favoured solution when the rest of the world identifies forest as the ‘saviour’. You close to Kiribati & Catrat island east of Solomon Is, which has gone under water, would you agree that Global Warming is alarming?

    I have done a little bit of digging and found out that heat is also coming up from beneath the earth also which has a more tremendous defrosting effect on Iceland that earth’s warmth.

    Now, would you agree that we need to cooperate in finding some solutions to at least relieve the planet the known overheating? If people are so earnestly concerned, then CARBON TRADE is one sure solution. I mean I can still slash & burn to get my feed, so really no one can stop me.

    hey Paul, wantok yu tink olsem wanem. Mi ting ol toktok blo you em gutpela long wanem em i askim yumi long tinting long olgeta rot blo kisim save long diwai na kabon treid.

  13. Hi Kafu,

    thank you for your feedback and queries. You are obviously a very thoughtful and concerned person who is looking for answers.

    The old, old story is: “If it looks to good to be true, it usually is”. Yet
    people still keep paying out hard earned money to very dubious schemes
    to make money from nothing. PNG is in no way different to Australia or
    that matter, the rest of the world. It is a tenant of human nature that people keep getting ‘conned’ by those selling get rich quick schemes.

    Nothing worthwhile is ever easy otherwise everyone would be doing it.

    Over two hundred years ago, people invested their money into shares in a
    South Seas Bubble that grew and grew and eventually burst like they all do. I’ve seen this happen again and again with the latest example being the Freddie Mac and Fanny May stupidity that gave rise to the Global
    Financial Crisis.

    Some people used to laugh at the concept of a cargo or money cult until
    I’d ask them: “Do you ever play the pokies or have a flutter on the GG’s?”
    That usually ended the conversation.

    If you don’t work for what you have, it’s very unlikely you will appreciate
    what you have. You sure won’t know how to replace it when it is spent
    or used up.

    Remember, the gem’s true beauty is only revealed when it put to the
    grindstone. or.. When the going gets tough, the tough get going.

    Forest Concerns

    Forest management is not something that happens overnight. As I’ve
    suggested elsewhere, there are a number of factors that make this
    particularly difficult in PNG. Firstly, the traditional land tenure
    arrangements make the management of most projects involving the use
    of land a group decision making process. While this cultural aspect was
    perfectly suitable in times past, to try and resolve who are the actual
    owners of the land and to try to obtain a decision that everyone is happy
    with is very difficult in practice. Often disputes arise
    that were traditionally decided in warfare. This practice has now been
    exacerbated by increasing population pressures.

    Look at the land disputes in the Highlands that are generating tribal
    warfare and worse.

    Secondly, an existing forest that is being used as a source for food and
    resources is not something that is easy to manage unless there is a rigid
    management control over the trees. In PNG, traditional forests are
    recognised as an essential and integral part of the forest owners life and
    lifestyle and culture. Remove their forest and people’s culture is
    irrevocably disrupted.

    When forests are logged and replanted, it takes many years for the new
    trees to start accumulating carbon in their trunks. Who can then monitor a
    traditionally owned forest and would the owners accept directions about
    their forest from an imposed manager who might tell them what tree to
    use and when it might be allowed to be cut down?

    Natural disasters like bush fires, volcanic eruptions and tsunamis have a
    potential to dramatically increase the amount of Carbon Dioxide into the
    air. Clearly bush fires and forest fires release hugh amounts of CO2 which no
    one seems to have considered including into the CO2 equation.

    The monetary equation for cut timber goes something like this:

    Felled log at site – possibly K100’s to the forest owners
    Sawn Timber – many K1,000’s to the millers
    Timber products – K10,000’s to K100,000’s in value added products to those
    who produce them.

    Is it any wonder timber companies want PNG timber? Some of the
    valuable cabinet timber is worth $4 – 5,000 a cubic meter these days.

    Turn it into furniture and you ‘value add’ the total by a factor of more than
    10 times that amount. Add to that the value of taxation and the wages to
    workers and you start to get the idea of why timber is so valuable to the
    timber companies. But all this value is nothing in comparison to the value
    the trees are to the current and future generations of forest owners. If the
    trees are systematically cut, poverty results.

    The Carbon Distraction

    Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is a natural part of the world and is an integral part of life. It is not the enemy. The problem is that population increases are
    threatening the Earth’s balance whereby CO2 is absorbed and the O2 that we need to live is made available to us. That balance has been continually destroyed by people who, through a lack in education, either don’t know what’s happening or don’t care. If your livelihood depends on cutting down all the remaining trees in order to feed your family, what do you do?

    The real issue is not free (or tree) handouts of food and clothing. All this does is destroy the personal integrity of those receiving the handouts. They end up suffering from a lack of personal esteem and become quickly
    dependent on even more handouts.

    Easy come, easy go.

    If all the people in the developing world were to receive education and be
    aware of the real situation, what would they then say? The so called
    leaders who are demanding more money at the Climate Change
    Convention aren’t likely to put the real situation to their people I’ll bet.
    How many are able to say that their people are free, happy, well looked
    after and educated? Why not? Because if a country’s people are kept
    uninformed and uneducated, they are more easily led or misled. A
    large population artificially kept in poverty is also a very useful asset
    to use as a bargaining chip when demanding more guilt money that is
    then used to buy more power, expensive consumer goods and well supplied off shore Bank Accounts for your retirement or when things go pear shaped.

    Big Issues ignored, small issues discussed. A favoured tactic from those
    who really don’t have any answers

    Be careful about being misled by small issues. This is a favoured tactic by
    those who don’t want people to think about the big picture and see
    through a smoke and mirror campaign of their own making. As an example,
    coral islands and sand islands are not permanent institutions and can
    and do move with ocean currents. The real impacts of climate change will
    be if and when the oceans rise a metre or so. Most of Bangladesh is only
    three meters above sea level for example. Just imagine where all those
    millions of people will go and what impact it will have on the surrounding
    countries. The effect on the Maldives, Tuvalu and other small island states
    will be miniscule by comparison yet who is doing the planning for this today?

    What’s the answer?

    Aside from the obvious need to improve our world and reduce pollution,
    the amount of waste produced by burning coal to produce energy is huge.
    Yet we have been diverted into concentrating on the terrible effects of
    nuclear energy as if it automatically will produce Atomic Bombs as a side
    effect. Those that have been the most vociferous about stopping nuclear
    reactors are now starting to change their tune. All too late. If they had’ve
    allowed these power generators to be built 20 years ago we wouldn’t have the same situation today. Geo thermal heat is also something that should be used as well. Using the heat in the Earth’s core is nothing new and should receive more funding than it currently does.

    No one wants to see hundreds of giant wind generators blotting out the
    view but often the areas where there is consistently a lot of prevailing
    wind also have a lot of people. Likewise, solar power is great in areas
    where there are no problem in covering the land up with glass panels
    and where there is a lot of continual sunlight.

    So why has nothing really been done to plan ahead? Because those
    who have been and are making all the money out of selling coal and
    oil have been able to keep the status quo by political manipulation.

    Now it’s all very well to say that people who use coal fired power
    generators are bad. But what about the countries who sell the coal?
    Should they withhold their coal from other countries who want it? PNG
    is about to sell immense amounts of Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) to
    China and other countries. What if some started to object by saying
    PNG was helping to increase the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere
    and shouldn’t now sell their LNG?

    What is actually happening is a potential shift in world power and the
    money makers are starting to get the idea that something has to change.
    You and me can only try and understand the issues and hopefully try to
    make whatever changes we can.

    I don’t claim I’ve got all the answers. All I suggest is that everyone try to get as much information as they can about these really important matters and try to understand the issues before they make any long term decisions. Remember, if you throw a rock into a pond, the ripples spread.

    1. To Paul and all participants of this blog,

      I am now reading sensible facts,

      and yes a big problem when Roberts registers the credits and trades their worth will be,
      To manage the funds so they are utilised properly.

      It is something he is working hard on at this time.

      Transparency of distrubution, management of spending.
      Paul maybe you could shed a light here with some positive opinions.

      Anyway Merry Christmas to all I am going to Europe tonight for Christmas.

  14. Update from Copenhagen.

    PNG is objecting to REDD scheme clauses that require payments to be made to the identifiable forest owners, not third parties, and to allow international monitoring of such schemes. From The Centre for Investigative Reporting…

    Forest talks slow over corruption controls

    During the last 24 hours of negotiations, a bloc of countries led by Papua New Guinea, with support from the Democratic Republic of Congo and Colombia, have resisted efforts to impose a package of safeguards to ensure the credibility of forest offsets.

    The three countries — each with substantial amounts of uncut forests and a questionable ability to oversee them — are objecting to three major provisions, according to Greg Picker, a former member of the Australian climate negotiating team and now a consultant on forest issues to the delegation.

    The first of these is the U.N.’s desire to “put boots on the ground” to ensure that trees are actually left standing — in other words, allow inspectors to move freely within a country’s borders to assess the veracity of preservation claims.

    The second is to clarify land titles and make sure that those paid for the carbon in the trees actually own the land on which the trees are growing.

    The third is a provision that will assess the “permanence” of these preservation efforts.

    Papua New Guinea agreed that safeguards were necessary but objected to the presence of international inspectors challenging its national sovereignty.

    The country has already been tarred by corruption in setting up early offset projects. In September, the Sydney Morning Herald reported on a $100 million carbon trading scandal involving fake carbon certificates in one of PNG’s preservation deals.

  15. Hi Peter,

    did you catch this latest expose?

    From The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley in Copenhagen

    19 Dec 2009

    The mountains shall labor, and what will be born? A stupid little mouse.

    Thanks to hundreds of thousands of US citizens who contacted their elected
    representatives to protest about the unelected, communistic world government
    with near-infinite powers of taxation, regulation and intervention that was
    proposed in early drafts of the Copenhagen Treaty, there is no Copenhagen Treaty. There is not even a Copenhagen Agreement. There is a “Copenhagen Accord”.

    The White House spinmeisters spun, and their official press release
    proclaimed, with more than usual fatuity, that President Obama had
    “salvaged” a deal at Copenhagen in bilateral talks with China, India,
    Brazil, and South Africa, which had established a negotiating bloc.

    The plainly-declared common position of these four developing nations had
    been the one beacon of clarity and common sense at the foggy fortnight of
    posturing and gibbering in the ghastly Copenhagen conference center.

    This is what the Forthright Four asked for:

    *Point 1. No compulsory limits on carbon emissions.*

    * *

    *Point 2. No emissions reductions at all unless the West paid for them.*

    * *

    *Point 3. No international monitoring of any emissions reductions not paid
    for by the West.*

    * *

    *Point 4. No use of “global warming” as an excuse to impose protectionist
    trade restrictions on countries that did not cut their carbon emissions*.

    After President Obama’s dramatic intervention to save the deal, this is what the Forthright Four got:

    *Point 1. No compulsory limits on carbon emissions.*

    * *

    *Point 2. No emissions reductions at all unless the West paid for them.*

    * *

    *Point 3. No international monitoring of any emissions reductions not paid
    for by the West.*

    * *

    *Point 4. No use of “global warming” as an excuse to impose protectionist
    trade restrictions on countries that did not cut their carbon emissions.*

    Here, in a nutshell – for fortunately nothing larger is needed – are the
    main points of the “Copenhagen Accord”:

    Main points: In the Copenhagen Accord, which is operational immediately, the parties

    “underline that climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our
    time”;

    emphasize their “strong political will to urgently combat climate change”;

    recognize “the scientific view that the increase in global temperature
    should be below 2 C°” and perhaps below 1.5 C°;

    aspire to “cooperate in achieving the peaking of global and national
    emissions as soon as possible”;

    acknowledge that eradicating poverty is the “overriding priority of
    developing countries”; and accept the need to help vulnerable countries –
    especially the least developed nations, small-island states, and Africa – to
    adapt to climate change.

    Self-imposed emissions targets: All parties will set for themselves, and
    comply with, emissions targets for 2020, to be submitted to the secretariat
    by 31 January 2010. Where developing countries are paid to cut their
    emissions, their compliance will be monitored. Developed countries will
    financially support less-developed countries to prevent deforestation.

    Carbon trading may be used.

    New bureaucracies and funding: Under the supervision of a “High-Level
    Panel”, developed countries will give up to $30 billion for 2010-12, aiming
    for $100 billion by 2020, in “scaled up, new and additional, predictable and
    adequate funding” to developing countries via a “Copenhagen Green Fund”. A “Technology Mechanism” will “accelerate technology development and transfer”to developing countries.

    And that’s it. Expensive, yes. Unnecessary, yes. But earth-shaking? No.

    The disconnect between the gaseous halations of various grandstanding “world leaders” about the supposedly urgent need to “Save The Planet Now” and the puny outcome of the Copenhagen Non-Event is dazzling. And it is welcome.

    For all the rhetoric – or the flatulence that passes for rhetoric these days

    – it has begun to dawn on the “leaders” of those nations that
    subject them to regular recall and re-election that the people no longer
    believe the mad scientists are telling them the truth. And the people are
    right.

    – What is more, after the failure of the mainstream news media to report what the malevolent and unpleasant scientists involved in the Climategate affair had written to one another about those with whom they disagreed, or about what they had done to invent, fabricate, contrive, fiddle, tweak, alter, massage, conceal, hide or even destroy scientific data for the sake of protecting and peddling the pseudo-science in which environment correspondents had so readily and so ignorantly believed, the people no longer trust the media.

    And that is bad news for a governing class that has come to develop a
    far-too-cosy relationship with the mainstream media. It is also very bad
    news for the mainstream media themselves, which are now rapidly losing
    circulation and ad revenue as the people rightly desert them for the
    Internet, where – notwithstanding various expensive attempts by the
    over-funded international Left to interfere with Google and Yahoo searches – the truth is still available if you know where to look.

    Copenhagen was the last-chance saloon not for the planet, which does not need saving, but for the UN’s world-government wannabes. They blew it, big-time, by believing their own overspun propaganda about planetary peril and thinking they had “world leaders” where they wanted them. They
    overreached themselves, and have paid the price.

    Even though next year is an el Nino year accompanied by fast-recovering
    solar activity, 2010 may not, after all, set a new global-temperature record
    to overtop that which was set in 1998, the year of the Great el Nino. By the time the next yackfest takes place in Mexico City in December 2010, the steam will have gone out of the “global warming” scare. We should not let our guard d own, but Copenhagen is more than the end of the beginning for Green fascism: it is the beginning of the end. The eco-Nazis’ attempt at global bureaucratic coup d’etat has failed, and no such attempt is likely to succeed again. Too many of you are watching.

  16. China sabotaged Copenhagen and suckered everyone.

    From The Guardian

    Copenhagen was a disaster. That much is agreed. But the truth about what actually happened is in danger of being lost amid the spin and inevitable mutual recriminations. The truth is this: China wrecked the talks, intentionally humiliated Barack Obama, and insisted on an awful “deal” so western leaders would walk away carrying the blame. How do I know this? Because I was in the room and saw it happen.

    China’s strategy was simple: block the open negotiations for two weeks, and then ensure that the closed-door deal made it look as if the west had failed the world’s poor once again. And sure enough, the aid agencies, civil society movements and environmental groups all took the bait. The failure was “the inevitable result of rich countries refusing adequately and fairly to shoulder their overwhelming responsibility”, said Christian Aid. “Rich countries have bullied developing nations,” fumed Friends of the Earth International.

    All very predictable, but the complete opposite of the truth. Even George Monbiot, writing in yesterday’s Guardian, made the mistake of singly blaming Obama. But I saw Obama fighting desperately to salvage a deal, and the Chinese delegate saying “no”, over and over again. Monbiot even approvingly quoted the Sudanese delegate Lumumba Di-Aping, who denounced the Copenhagen accord as “a suicide pact, an incineration pact, in order to maintain the economic dominance of a few countries”.

    Sudan behaves at the talks as a puppet of China; one of a number of countries that relieves the Chinese delegation of having to fight its battles in open sessions. It was a perfect stitch-up. China gutted the deal behind the scenes, and then left its proxies to savage it in public.

    Here’s what actually went on late last Friday night, as heads of state from two dozen countries met behind closed doors. Obama was at the table for several hours, sitting between Gordon Brown and the Ethiopian prime minister, Meles Zenawi. The Danish prime minister chaired, and on his right sat Ban Ki-moon, secretary-general of the UN. Probably only about 50 or 60 people, including the heads of state, were in the room. I was attached to one of the delegations, whose head of state was also present for most of the time.

    What I saw was profoundly shocking. The Chinese premier, Wen Jinbao, did not deign to attend the meetings personally, instead sending a second-tier official in the country’s foreign ministry to sit opposite Obama himself. The diplomatic snub was obvious and brutal, as was the practical implication: several times during the session, the world’s most powerful heads of state were forced to wait around as the Chinese delegate went off to make telephone calls to his “superiors”.

    Shifting the blame

    To those who would blame Obama and rich countries in general, know this: it was China’s representative who insisted that industrialised country targets, previously agreed as an 80% cut by 2050, be taken out of the deal. “Why can’t we even mention our own targets?” demanded a furious Angela Merkel. Australia’s prime minister, Kevin Rudd, was annoyed enough to bang his microphone. Brazil’s representative too pointed out the illogicality of China’s position. Why should rich countries not announce even this unilateral cut? The Chinese delegate said no, and I watched, aghast, as Merkel threw up her hands in despair and conceded the point. Now we know why – because China bet, correctly, that Obama would get the blame for the Copenhagen accord’s lack of ambition.

    China, backed at times by India, then proceeded to take out all the numbers that mattered. A 2020 peaking year in global emissions, essential to restrain temperatures to 2C, was removed and replaced by woolly language suggesting that emissions should peak “as soon as possible”. The long-term target, of global 50% cuts by 2050, was also excised. No one else, perhaps with the exceptions of India and Saudi Arabia, wanted this to happen. I am certain that had the Chinese not been in the room, we would have left Copenhagen with a deal that had environmentalists popping champagne corks popping in every corner of the world.

    Strong position

    So how did China manage to pull off this coup? First, it was in an extremely strong negotiating position. China didn’t need a deal. As one developing country foreign minister said to me: “The Athenians had nothing to offer to the Spartans.” On the other hand, western leaders in particular – but also presidents Lula of Brazil, Zuma of South Africa, Calderón of Mexico and many others – were desperate for a positive outcome. Obama needed a strong deal perhaps more than anyone. The US had confirmed the offer of $100bn to developing countries for adaptation, put serious cuts on the table for the first time (17% below 2005 levels by 2020), and was obviously prepared to up its offer.

    Above all, Obama needed to be able to demonstrate to the Senate that he could deliver China in any global climate regulation framework, so conservative senators could not argue that US carbon cuts would further advantage Chinese industry. With midterm elections looming, Obama and his staff also knew that Copenhagen would be probably their only opportunity to go to climate change talks with a strong mandate. This further strengthened China’s negotiating hand, as did the complete lack of civil society political pressure on either China or India. Campaign groups never blame developing countries for failure; this is an iron rule that is never broken. The Indians, in particular, have become past masters at co-opting the language of equity (“equal rights to the atmosphere”) in the service of planetary suicide – and leftish campaigners and commentators are hoist with their own petard.

    With the deal gutted, the heads of state session concluded with a final battle as the Chinese delegate insisted on removing the 1.5C target so beloved of the small island states and low-lying nations who have most to lose from rising seas. President Nasheed of the Maldives, supported by Brown, fought valiantly to save this crucial number. “How can you ask my country to go extinct?” demanded Nasheed. The Chinese delegate feigned great offence – and the number stayed, but surrounded by language which makes it all but meaningless. The deed was done.

    China’s game

    All this raises the question: what is China’s game? Why did China, in the words of a UK-based analyst who also spent hours in heads of state meetings, “not only reject targets for itself, but also refuse to allow any other country to take on binding targets?” The analyst, who has attended climate conferences for more than 15 years, concludes that China wants to weaken the climate regulation regime now “in order to avoid the risk that it might be called on to be more ambitious in a few years’ time”.

    This does not mean China is not serious about global warming. It is strong in both the wind and solar industries. But China’s growth, and growing global political and economic dominance, is based largely on cheap coal. China knows it is becoming an uncontested superpower; indeed its newfound muscular confidence was on striking display in Copenhagen. Its coal-based economy doubles every decade, and its power increases commensurately. Its leadership will not alter this magic formula unless they absolutely have to.

    Copenhagen was much worse than just another bad deal, because it illustrated a profound shift in global geopolitics. This is fast becoming China’s century, yet its leadership has displayed that multilateral environmental governance is not only not a priority, but is viewed as a hindrance to the new superpower’s freedom of action. I left Copenhagen more despondent than I have felt in a long time. After all the hope and all the hype, the mobilisation of thousands, a wave of optimism crashed against the rock of global power politics, fell back, and drained away.

  17. Its not that China suckered everyone.
    It is more to the point that everyone else(countries) is broke.
    Why should China the only real social liquid country on the planet able to afford the cost of climate “”change”” allow free loaders to ride on its back(USA,EU, etc).
    Remember for what ever reason ‘China” is rated as a 3rd developing country.
    Water and population is more of a problem than reducing emmissions for China.
    Next is unpaid debts from Developed countries.
    The biggest suckered comments were announced from the EU, followed by dribble from USA , Australia etc.
    The bottom line is that Governments have not and cannot find a way to ‘tax’ the cost of reducing emmissions and stay in the business of politics.

    It is now apparent that our world leaders are a sad joke,and will not and have no real reason to change their protocol of the day in overseeing their countries.

    As previously written on this blog the G22 is found wanting, and the only way of survival on this planet for the future is as we started!!
    “catch and kill your own”

    1. True its not green,
      however it is how China see’s it.
      and really it does at least tell the truth, instead of tippee toeing around with verbal misleading stories to sell media.
      Except nobody wants to understand(or listen) what ‘China’s’ agenda is or its vision(if any) to reduce emmissions.
      The reality is survival and remember China has recorded history much much older than before Christ.Its 2 billion people are confronted with the simple issue of ‘water’ then clean air to breath.
      It might be that China is wondering which option first similar to,is it?”the chicken or the egg” first.

      Interesting to note Japan’s comments if any.

      Population is now defined as difficult to measure in ‘methodologies for large emmitting carbon accounting countries,(apples for apples) and Paul I noticed you touch this subject some comments back very good.
      The truth is that this is the real argument at present!!!!!!but most of the world would rather keep their head in the sand.

      The PNG developer has contracted his scientists to refine these questions and has asked for answers I am told.2010 will be an interesting year.
      ciao

  18. Cash Making Opportunities – The Beginning The working life is already tough enough, but the worries of being out of work was even tougher. The unsecured working environment have prompted me to search the internet for an alternative source of extra income so that I could learn how to Make Money Work for me and be Financially Independent. I listed down a number of Free Internet Business Opportunity Ideas while researching ways how people earn money online while working-from-home…….

    onlineuniversalwork

    1. The PNG developer has explained to myself and others that the Voluntary Carbon Trading structure for PNG will create thousands of jobs through out PNG.
      Each Forest Incorporation for its Incorporated land groups will put in place stringent monitoring and data recording stations.
      Each Forest Incorporation will improve its area with huge infrustructure improvements.
      For and behalf of its ILG’s.
      So Floraaketch there is always the need for hard working and prompt considerant people to participate in the support that will offer genuine returns to those induviduals with the passion and desire to better themselves and help save the Rain Forests of PNG that will help balance the on going descruction of the planet by developed countries.
      Happy New Year!

  19. hello guys, it seems all has failed at COP15 for carbon trade. It only goes to conclude one thing for sure: the problems in this world differ from country to country, so the agenda of global warming is not a worldly plight.

    carbon cowboys attempt and VCT is applicable only for which countries then?

    1. A very silly comment, anyway ask someone who knows I suggest the PNG developer.
      Why do you ask that question kafu, getting itchy feet?

  20. Hi Kafu,

    It seems like there is a large, grey area between what some call a developed country and what some call a developing country. This grey area is probably made up from the clouds of pollution that continue to be produced in defiance of better judgement.

    At the moment, some so called developing countries apparently get to call other countries ‘developed’ and therefore able to be blamed for world pollution. This is while the so called ‘developing’ countries continue to pollute the world themselves but justify their actions by saying they too should have their turn. It sounds like the old scenario of putting the kids in charge of the candy store doesn’t it? There can be no logic when emotion takes over.

    There is an African proverb that goes something like this: ‘When elephants make love, the grass gets flattened.’

    PNG forest owners would do well to ponder about their disappearing forests and what they can do themselves to stop this from happening. Depending on outsiders offering riches for little or no work could well fit into the old syndrome: ‘If it looks too good to be true, it usually is.’

    1. Again Paul unproductive comments, a complete load of nonsence,

      Paul always ‘beware of the Golden Greek giving gifts”

      Trying to understand ‘if it looks too good to be true, it usally is’ is that good???

      I am not sure but you must be typing with one hand, oh I wonder were could the other hand be.

  21. I’d be interested to hear from the kaubois what their next move is.

    They’ve announced to us on this forum that they have already developed mechanisms to roll out carbon trade so I’d be very interested to hear from them about how their processes and procedures gel with the chaotic outcome at Copenhagen.

    We’ve tangoed enough with con artists in the last 34 years. Sorry not this time!

    1. the cowboy has decided not tell you anything, and I dont blame him.
      these comments are full of jealously, and I suppose I should not be participating is this blog , but sorry I just cant help my self.
      As the developer has always said the Poppies will grow taller towards the finish.
      I can assure you the developer is close to delivery and right on schedule.

      1. tim,

        good luck to the ‘developer’ and whoever in PNG he is dealing with.

        i will be the first to congratulate them if they get it right – and i sincerely hope they do.

        as for me and my house, we will wait and understand the full issues properly before launching in. we’ve lived without windfall cash for ages, complementing our simple village lifestyle with cocoa and copra. we will continue living like that until we ourselves fully understand what we want to do with our forests. we are NOT discontent with what we currently have.

        we will not jump and NO ONE (whether that be some carbon saviour or logging mongrel) is going to push us.

  22. (sigh!!!)…thanks Paul & Anada, I am hanging my head sideways because my clansmen think otherwise. To explain that registering an ILG is good but we have to hold out till 2016 or 2020. And to explain the need to save the trees to them is a headfuck… why has everything got to do with money???!!!

  23. kafu,

    I took the time out to properly explain the thing to my clansmen when I went home this Christmas and they understood it well.

    If you leave money aside and explain the concept properly using things they can already identify with, they will easily grasp it. For example, I used cocoa and copra our traditional commodities on the ground and drew comparisons with carbon as a potential commodity.

    I then pointed out the difference between the three in that cocoa and copra are tangible agricultural commodities while carbon is an intangible scientific commodity. I further explained that because carbon trade is a trade involving a scientific commodity, we will have to be patient and wait while the science behind it is properly defined and the related accounting mechanisms developed.

    May sound like big concepts to a typical PNG villager, but it actually is quite simple to explain if you start it off properly. I never touched the money aspects of it all throughout my talk and it did the tricks. Try it and you’ll be amazed at our people’s intelligence.

    Leave money and greed (which cloud people’s thinking) out and they’ll see the issues crystal clear.

  24. Kafu,

    I feel for you and your wantoks. As soon as someone raises the issue of money, the equation, as Anada correctly says, quickly becomes distorted and skewed in that direction.

    The dilemma was always about who gains and who loses. At a national and international level, the politics of carbon are so complex as to defy the understanding of most people.

    If you leave aside the political debate and those that are trying to make a quick buck, the essence of the issue is that forest owners are the custodians of a resource that is not just theirs to buy and sell. A forest has supported their families for many generations and must support future generations with the resources it holds. This is not something anyone who is not connected to a forest has either to consider or worry about. Whatever the short term benefits in quick cash being bandied around, any money so gained from selling non commercially planted trees quickly evaporates. Forest owners are then left with nothing except a barren and empty future.

    So if, and I do mean if, there are eventually some potential gains on offer for retaining a forest as a so called ‘carbon sink’, the government of PNG and those other nations who still have some rainforests left, have openly stated that they will not accept international scrutiny to ensure the trees that have been paid for are not then cut down in the future. So how can there be an effective basis for a future agreement?

    Don’t hold your breath for anything to be quickly decided in any direction. Just hang on to your forest at any cost.

  25. Tupela wantok, Tanikiu bada erea, I shall take your advices and try a different approach as Anada suggested. Na Wantok Paul, mi wanbel long tok blong yu, “just hang onto your forest at any cost”, but consider below.

    You will agree that saving forest was advocated differently in the last few years in PNG since the interest in carbon trade popped up. Previously, the
    “greens” did a fantastic job by just spreading the negative impacts of deforestation thru out many logging areas. Now its a different ball game with money associated to such campaigns. The entire country has been tuned to this mode of saving forest campaign, I am just interested to know what aftermath impacts from COP15 meeting outcome from other forest owners as what I am facing with my own clansmen.

    This brings me back to the question I asked earlier; Carbon Cowboys’ efforts and VCT is applicable only for which countries then? Someone should clarify here for the benefit of all.

  26. Hi Kafu,

    While I’m not a rep. for the ‘Green’ movement, I appreciate some of their ideas. The issue that really does concern me is that from my PNG experience, many people in the villages don’t have the opportunity to get a comprehensive education and to see how things are from a different perspective. Things look different when you start to climb a mountain from where you were when you started at an ‘ant’s eye level’. PNG people deserve to be fully informed about all the issues and people involved in competing to get their attention about the carbon debate in general and their forests in particular.

    I know from experience there is a tendency to accept what is being touted by outsiders who seem to have prestige and power. PNG people are no different from people anywhere except that in some other countries people may have more opportunities to obtain enough information to get clear view on what is going on. That’s where educated and informed people like yourself people can help. You have the opportunity to take the information you can obtain back to your people and discuss it with them.

    Have you thought of collecting what concerns your clansmen have and discussing these concerns on this blog? Perhaps there are others who could help with information and insight. I know it’s not easy to communicate directly between town and village however where there is a will, there is a way. The more information you have about a subject, the better an informed decision will be. Frankly I think the Copenhagen conference was a giant ‘COP out’ and a farce from the start. It was all about world politics and not about forests anyway.

    The second concern I have is about a forest owner’s views about their forest. There is an old saying that goes, ‘You never really appreciate what you have until you have to do without it.’ Many previous forest owners have allowed their trees to be cut for a token payment and then later regretted their decision. If it were possible for all the forest owners in the world to get together and discuss their concerns, what might come out of this getogether?

    There will be an increasing pressure on forest owners to sell their tress in the future due to an ever expanding world population and the subsequent demand for timber. If someone was able to start discussions now as to what benefits a forest provides people today, people could then start thinking about the future. Listing known benefits may be easy but what about unknown benefits? Where there were relatively few people in the past, ‘slash and burn’ agriculture could be practiced as the forest had an opportunity to regenerate. When populations increase however, the land quickly becomes exhausted and more and more tress need to be cut down. That’s when the problems really start. Mudslides and washaways destroy gardens and kill people. More trees then have to be cut down to build new houses and bridges. Look at what happened recently in Oro. Then the climate changes and the rains don’t come and a drought causes more suffering. Look at Africa today.

    My grandmother used to say, “A stitch in time, saves nine.”

    Hope this might start some ideas flowing on this blog that might help you.

    lukim yu wantok,

    1. Paul,
      Reading these comments, just goes to show how far behind you and your friends are.
      Laughable acttually.
      Any way I suggest you and your friends and ILG’s wait for a “landgrab” so they put you out of your suffering or wait for compliance or maybe you could wait if REDD or REDD+ is or is not a myth.(feel like a bet Paul?)
      My grandmother used to say it is either the ‘quick or the dead”.
      My Grandfather used to say most people are similar to ‘sheep’ and most are compared to “lambs at slaughter” , they only bleat when the knife cuts the neck.
      Reading these comments suggest my Grandparents are right.

  27. Hello Wantoks,
    I thank Paul for the advice above. I realised Tim has been resurrected with a new zeal of failed carbon trader fangs.

    My problem is which countries are participating in voluntary carbon trade or is it just the scheme by scientists and economist to sell to idiotic publics on the stock exchange by scam companies. The world knows that COP15 is a failure.

    My internal problem is, the clansmen think 2020 is way too long to wait for a regulated carbon trading. People fall back to “slash & burn” plus small scale logging for cash. The fear is with mordern tools & equipment, even a small scale has damaging impact on the forest over time.

    I especially would encourage you Tim to do wider reading. It is always better to know all the pros & cons about a subject. For your sake I’ll copy the following for you to read and tell me what you think of my questions. I have no itchy feet, mate…lukim na yu tok…
    ———————————————————————–
    Forests, Carbon Markets and Hot Air: Why the Carbon Stored in Forests Should not be Traded

    By Chris Lang, in “Upsetting the Offset: The Political Economy of Carbon Markets”, edited by Steffen Böhm and Siddhartha Dabhi, Mayfly books, December 2009.

    Introduction
    Reduced emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD) is, in theory at least, a simple idea. Governments, companies, forest owners, local communities or indigenous peoples in the South should be rewarded for keeping their forests instead of cutting them down. The devil, as always, is in the details. Marc Stuart of EcoSecurities describes REDD as

    “the most mind twistingly complex endeavor in the carbon game. The fact is that REDD involves scientific uncertainties, technical challenges, heterogeneous non-contiguous asset classes, multi-decade performance guarantees, local land tenure issues, brutal potential for gaming and the fact that getting it wrong means that scam artists will get unimaginably rich while emissions don’t change a bit.”[1]

    None of this prevents Stuart from supporting the trade in carbon stored in forests. This is perhaps not surprising since as a founder of one of the biggest carbon consulting firms in the world, EcoSecurities, he has made his fortune from carbon trading.

    What is REDD?
    The idea of making payments to discourage deforestation and forest degradation was discussed in the negotiations leading to the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, but it was ultimately rejected in part at least because of the problems that Marc Stuart describes. REDD developed from a proposal in 2005 by a group of countries calling themselves the Coalition for Rainforest Nations (more on them later). Two years later, the proposal was taken up at the Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change in Bali (COP-13). An agreement on REDD is planned to be made at COP-15 which will take place in Copenhagen in December 2009.

    The ‘Bali Action Plan’ Calls for:
    “Policy approaches and positive incentives on issues relating to reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries; and the role of conservation, sustainable management of forests and enhancement of forest carbon stocks in developing countries.[2]

    The above paragraph (paragraph 1b(iii)) is referred to as ‘REDD-plus’. It is worth reading closely. ‘REDD-plus’ includes activities with potentially extremely serious implications for indigenous people, local communities and forests:

    “conservation” sounds good, but the history of the establishment of national parks includes large scale evictions and loss of rights for indigenous peoples and local communities;[3]

    “sustainable management of forests” could include subsidies to commercial logging operations in old-growth forests, indigenous peoples’ territory or in villagers’ community forests;

    “enhancement of forest carbon stocks” could result in conversion of land (including forests) to industrial tree plantations, with serious implications for biodiversity, forests and local communities.[4]

    In order to prevent abuses under REDD, we would hope, as an absolute minimum, to see that the UN is ensuring that international human rights instruments are reaffirmed in any agreement on REDD. Particularly important are the UN Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the concept of Free Prior Informed Consent. Unfortunately, the UN climate change negotiations are going in the opposite direction. In December 2008, at COP-14 in Poznań, the US, Canada, New Zealand and Australia opposed any reference to Indigenous Peoples’ rights in the negotiating text and the draft text was duly weakened.[5]

    While there has not yet been any agreement on how REDD is to be financed, a look at some of the main actors involved suggests that there is a serious danger that it will be financed through carbon trading. The role of the World Bank is of particularly concern, given its fondness for carbon trading.

    The World Bank’s main mechanism for promoting REDD is a new scheme, launched in Bali in 2007: the Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF). Under this scheme, the Bank is working with tropical countries to help them achieve ‘readiness’ for REDD. When the World Bank launched the FCPF, Benoit Bosquet, a senoir natural resources management specialist at the World Bank, said “The facility’s ultimate goal is to jump-start a forest carbon market that tips the economic balance in favour of conserving forests.”[6] As Marcus Colchester of the Forest Peoples Programme points out, the speed with which the FCPF is going ahead risks undermining REDD. In particular, the “importance of securing rights [for indigenous peoples and local communities] has been played down and [the World Bank’s] safeguards process allowed to drift.”[7]

    What’s Wrong with Trading Forest Carbon?
    The problem with trading the carbon stored in forests is that we need to reduce greenhouse emissions and stop deforestation. We cannot trade off one against the other.

    Trading the carbon stored in forests would mean that one ton of emissions reduced through avoided deforestation or forest degradation would allow emissions in the North to increase by one ton. Offsetting emissions in the North against carbon credits generated through REDD does not by definition, reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This is the model of the clean development mechanism. A recent report by the University of Zurich, Öko-Institut, Perspectives GmbH and Point Carbon explains the problem succinctly:

    “A continuation of the CDM as a pure offset mechanism would not directly contribute to the achievement of this goal [of limiting warming to 2°C], since the emission reductions generated under this mechanism in developing countries allow for higher emissions in industrialized countries.”[8]

    Another problem is that carbon markets cannot send long term investment signals. During 2008, the global financial and economic crisis led to a slight reduction of emissions of greenhouse gases in the EU. But when New Carbon Finance released a report announcing the fall in emissions in mid-February 2009, the Financial Times described the report as a “blow to the [carbon] market”.[9] The Financial Times explained that

    “Falling emissions spell a lower carbon price because fewer permits will be needed by the heavy industries, such as power generation and steel-making, covered by the scheme.”

    This is a serious flaw in the carbon market. If the price of carbon goes down due to the economic slowdown, incentives for serious re-investment disappear. As soon as the economy starts to recover, all the old machinery is simply started up again.

    On 1 April 2009, thousands of people set up camp in the City of London, outside the European Climate Exchange to protest against carbon trading in Europe. They had good reason to do so, given the record of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme. Kevin Smith of the NGO Carbon Trade Watch sums up the problems:

    “Phase 1 of the scheme gave away the right to pollute for free. Bingo! The biggest polluters then made billions in windfall profits. Phase 2 and in the wake of market meltdown, the price of carbon is again at rock-bottom. The EU scheme is providing all manner of opportunities to pollute and make money, which is why companies from e.on to BP to BAA are all supporters. As a mechanism to reduce emissions it has been an out and out failure.”[10]

    Innovative Financial Mechanisms or the New Sub-Prime?
    The problems with trading forest carbon are not limited to the fact that it will not address runaway climate change. Forest carbon would be one part of the global carbon markets. In 2007, Chris Leeds, then-head of emissions trading at Merrill Lynch told the New York Times that carbon could become “one of the fasting-growing markets ever, with volumes comparable to credit derivatives inside of a decade.”[11] But the similarities between carbon trading and derivatives trading are not limited to predictions of the size of the carbon trade. There are close parallels between the way the carbon markets are developing and the way the markets in derivatives and futures developed, until they crashed spectacularly in 2008. Yet proponents of financing REDD through trading forest carbon talk about “innovative financial instruments” as if the current global financial crisis had never happened.

    For example, at a side event at the climate conference in Poznań in December 2008, Ben Vitale of Conservation International spoke positively about the role innovative financing could play in financing forest conservation. During the questions after his presentation, I asked Vitale to say something about the current global financial crisis and in particular to say something about the financial innovations that led to the financial collapse and the billion dollar bailouts. I noted that the carbon market will be extremely complex, not transparent and that it seems ironic to be talking about ‘innovative financing’ at this particular moment in history.

    Vitale declined to answer my questions, commenting only that with this financial crisis perhaps it makes sense to have a more stable fund but, he added, the fund would have to be very, very large and it would have to grow over time. He made no mention of the bailout of the banks, the complexity of the carbon market, or what would happen if the carbon market fails.[12]

    Derivatives Trading and Carbon Markets
    Larry Lohmann of the UK-based research and advocacy organization The Corner House has been investigating the failure of carbon markets to address climate change for several years. In 2006, he edited a book titled Carbon Trading: A Critical Conversation on Climate Change, Privatization and Power.[13] In a summary of a memorandum submitted to a UK Select Committee on carbon trading, Lohmann points out the dangers of carbon trading:

    “Carbon markets are characterised by a type of speculative derivatives trading and need to be evaluated as such in the light of the current financial crisis. Like financial derivatives markets, carbon markets are legitimated by (spurious or overblown) claims of efficiency but undermined by their tendency to exacerbate a crisis. Carbon markets are plagued by difficulties of asset valuation parallel to those that have contributed to the financial crisis and are themselves prone to a similar crash. Carbon markets are also characterized by inherent problems of conflicts of interest, regulatory capture and unregulatability familiar from recent analyses of the financial crisis.”[14]

    Even people very closely involved in the carbon markets admit that there are similarities with trade in derivatives. “I guess in many ways it’s akin to subprime,” said Marc Stuart of EcoSecurities after the value of the company’s shares crashed in 2008. “You keep layering on crap until you say, ‘We can’t do this anymore’”.[15]

    Lohmann lists some of the institutions dealing in derivatives that are involved in carbon markets, including Goldman Sachs, Deutsche Bank, Morgan Stanley, Barclays Capital, Fortis, Rabobank, BNP Paribas, Sumitomo, Kommunalkredit, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch and Cantor Fitzgerald. He points out that “The stupendous complexity of new financial instruments such as collateralized debt obligations is in some ways matched by that of carbon trading, with its reams of additionality calculations, diversity of carbon credits, daunting monitoring and legal requirements and crowd of acronyms.”[16]

    Several of the same people who were involved in creating financial derivatives markets are also involved in creating carbon markets. The founder and chairman of the Chicago Climate Exchange is Richard Sandor, who in the 1970s was one of the leading developers of derivatives and futures markets.[17] The Chicago Climate Exchange offers a futures contract based on emissions allowances under a US cap and trade scheme – before such a scheme even exists.

    Richard Sandor is, predictably, in favour of trading forest carbon. “The clock is moving. They are slashing and burning and cutting the forests of the world. It may be a quarter of global warming and we can get the rate to two per cent simply by inventing a preservation credit and making that forest have value in other ways. Who loses when we do that?” he said in an interview with The New
    Yorker last year.[18]

    Sandor appears to have little sympathy for local communities and even less knowledge of the complexities of tropical forest politics. The obvious answer to Sandor’s question is that indigenous peoples and forest dependent communities are likely lose when someone in the USA makes their forests more valuable to outsiders. Land grabs are the almost inevitable consequence of increasing the value of forests. Of the many attempts to stop or slow deforestation, the few successful projects have been those that work closely with local communities and actively support Indigenous Peoples’ and local communities’ rights.

    “Fleecing Landowners and Indigenous People”
    Recent events in Papua New Guinea illustrate some of the problems with Sandor’s simplistic approach to forests. The Office of Climate Change appears to have issued at least 40 REDD ‘credits’, each denoting one million tons of carbon, according to investigations carried out by a journalist with The Economist magazine.[19] One of the REDD carbon ‘credits’ relates to the Kamula Doso REDD project. As the Eco-Forestry Forum, a PNG NGO, points out “In November 2008, the Office of Climate change issued a certificate granting the rights to 1 million tons of carbon from Kamula Doso to a company called Nupan Trading limited. This certificate was issued despite PNG having no laws that allow trading in carbon rights and the Office of Climate Change not having obtained the informed consent of landowners.” The head of the Office of Climate Change, Theo Yasause, denies any wrongdoing and says that the sample credits were created merely “to see what it looked like”.[20] In June 2009, Yasause was suspended while an internal investigation of the Office of Climate Change is carried out.[21]

    Meanwhile, conmen are travelling from village to village offering fake carbon trading deals and promising huge returns. Villagers hand over about US$500, for “registration as a shareholder” in a carbon trading company. They receive a receipt and the conman leaves, never to be seen in the village again. Natasha Loder, a journalist with The Economist, comments,

    “What is striking about the invention of an avoided forest carbon market is the extent to which it is quickly spawning a variety of imaginative ways of fleecing landowners and indigenous people in the rush for green gold.”[22]

    Can Carbon Markets be Regulated?
    It is not just out in the bush in Papua New Guinea that trading in forest carbon is unregulated. Carbon markets are riddled with conflicts of interest and revolving doors between public and private institutions as well as between regulators and traders.

    Carbon markets were effectively created in 1997, when Al Gore led the USA’s climate negotiators in destroying the Kyoto Protocol, by allowing rich nations to buy their emissions cuts from other countries.[23] Of course Gore’s film ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ has done a great deal to convince large numbers of people that climate change is real and the film has also helped expose the folly of climate denial. But when Gore jets around the world for his extraordinarily well-paid speaking appointments[24] he does not mention the inconvenient truth that he helped to create carbon markets and is now profiting from them. In 2004, Al Gore co-founded Generation Investment Management, together with David Blood, former chief executive of Goldman Sachs Asset Management.[25] In 2008, Gore’s firm bought a 9.6 per cent share in Camco International Ltd,[26] a Jersey-based company which holds one of the world’s largest carbon credit portfolios. In February 2009, Generation Investment Management increased its share in Camco International to 13.74 per cent, making it the largest shareholder in the company. The following month Generation Investment Management increased its share further to 18.94 per cent.[27]

    Ken Newcombe is another key player in the development of the trade in forest carbon. As a recent article in Point Carbon’s magazine Trading Carbon notes, “Ken Newcombe has been involved in carbon markets since their inception.”[28] From 1990 to 1996, Newcombe was chief of the global environment division at the World Bank. He led the Bank’s involvement in Forest Market Transformation Initiative,[29] which the Bank describes as a “strategic coalition of conservation NGOs, private sector forest industry leaders, researchers, development practitioners, and financiers, including the World Bank, [that] is working to develop innovative approaches to the adoption of more environmentally friendly forest management and marketing practices in the remaining forest frontiers.”[30] After that, he led the creation of the Bank’s Prototype Carbon Fund.

    During a press conference at the Carbon Expo Trade Fair in Cologne in 2004, Newcombe explained the purpose of the Bank’s involvement in carbon markets: “The World Bank is reducing the risk for private investors.”[31] The following year Newcombe left the Bank’s carbon finance unit, by which time the Bank was managing carbon funds with a total value of US$1 billion. Newcombe became senior manager and advisor of the G8 investment framework initiative at the World Bank.

    The next year he was on the move again, this time to Climate Change Capital, the largest private sector carbon fund in the world. James Cameron, Vice-Chairman at Climate Change Capital said of Newcombe, “He has a fantastic network and knows about World Bank projects that we can now invest in.”[32] Cameron is an environmental lawyer who helped negotiate the Kyoto Protocol. From Climate Change Capital, Newcombe headed the carbon desk at Goldman Sachs in New York before launching his own company, C-Quest Capital, to profit further from the carbon markets. “We see the voluntary market as a risk hedge strategy,” Newcombe explained to Point Carbon. “We are getting our foot in the door in assets we think might be good for compliance in the future,” he added. He sees international offsets as an “inevitable part of any US scheme”.[33]

    Newcombe divides people involved in carbon markets into two groups. “There are those who see it as a way to make money, and see it as the next wave as high risk, high reward businesses,” he told Point Carbon. “Others are wanting to make good money, but by doing good in the process. I like to think I build teams who are the latter camp.”[34]

    Newcombe is a director emeritus of Forest Trends, an organization that developed from the World Bank’s Forest Market Transformation Initiative.[35] Michael Jenkins, the president and CEO of Forest Trends also came from the World Bank, where he held a joint appointment as a senior forestry advisor. Given the World Bank’s disastrous record in the forests of the global South,[36] Jenkins might be considered a strange choice to head up an NGO. But Forest Trends is no ordinary NGO. Its board includes representatives from Mitsubishi International, ABN Amro, Sveaskog, The Nature Conservancy, Greenpeace Russia, Rainforest Action Network and Generation Investment Management.[37] One of the board members, David Brand, is head of New Forests, “an investment management and advisory services firm specializing in forestry and land-based environmental markets, such as timber, carbon, biodiversity and water”.[38] (For more information about New Forests’ activities in Uganda, see the chapter by Ricardo Carrere in this book.) Generation Investment Management is one of the four shareholders in New Forests and David Blood, the co-founder of Generation Investment Management, sits on New Forests’ board.[39] Forest Trends publishes Ecosystem Marketplace and helped create the Katoomba Group, the Business and Biodiversity Offsets Program, SpeciesBanking.com, ForestCarbonPortal.com and the Chesapeake Fund, all of which promote market ‘solutions’ to environmental problems. In April 2009, at the tenth anniversary of Forest Trends, Al Gore said “Forest Trends has become widely-regarded as the most comprehensive advocate and resource for anyone who wants to understand and help to further develop markets for ecosystem services.”[40]

    Larry Lohmann notes further conflicts of interest in carbon markets.[41] Barclays Capital is a major investor in the carbon markets and at the same time boasts that “One of our team is a member of the Methodology Panel to the UNFCCC CDM Executive Board.”[42] Lex de Jonge is simultaneously head of the carbon offset purchase programme of the Dutch government and vice chair of the Clean Development Mechanism Executive Board. Harald Dovland headed Norway’s climate negotiations team for 12 years. He is vice chair of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex I Parties under the Kyoto Protocol.[43] Dovland states that what is needed now is ‘acceptance of long-term goals on a high political level, further development of markets, and innovative financing solutions’. But at the same time, Dovland is an advisor to Econ Pöyry, a company which profits from carbon trading.[44]

    Point Carbon claims to be a “provider of independent news, analysis and consulting services”, but as the Financial Times recently noted Point Carbon is in fact “part-owned by financial and industrial interests”. (Point Carbon is owned by Oak Investments, JP Morgan, J-Power, Mizuho, Schibsted and the employees.)[45]

    Caisse des Dépôts is one of the organizations that is pushing to include forests in carbon markets, through reports such as ‘Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation: What Contribution from Carbon Markets?’.[46] But as well as producing reports promoting expanded carbon markets, Caisse des Dépôts profits from the trade in carbon. It is a 40 per cent shareholder in Paris-based BlueNext, Europe’s main spot EU Allowances (EUAs) exchange. In February 2009, BlueNext was earning over 2 million euros a week on transactions of EUAs.[47]

    Kevin Conrad and the Coalition for Rainforest Nations
    This discussion of carbon markets and forests would be incomplete without looking at the role of Kevin Conrad, ambassador and special envoy for the environment and climate change for Papua New Guinea. In December 2007, at the UN climate negotiations in Bali, Conrad told the US delegation, “if for some reason you’re not willing to lead, leave it to the rest of us. Please get out of the way.”[48]

    To his credit, Conrad remains critical of the US. “President Barack Obama’s current proposal to reduce US emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 and 80 per cent below by 2050 is grossly insufficient in the near term and simply pushes true responsibility on to future US presidents,” he wrote in April 2009. “Why should the greatest emitter in history be granted 12 extra years simply to get to the starting line accepted by other industrialized countries? Is this leadership or laggardship?”[49]

    Conrad is executive director of the Coalition for Rainforest Nations (CfRN), a group of tropical countries which tabled the first proposal for REDD at the UNFCCC COP11 in Montreal, in 2005. CfRN has since grown from 11 countries led by Papua New Guinea and Costa Rica, to 40 countries.[50] Conrad and CfRN promote trading of the carbon stored in forests: “The Rainforest Coalition seeks to incorporate certified emissions offsets related to deforestation (in addition to afforestation and reforestation) within global carbon emissions markets by revising the Marrakech Accords, amending the Kyoto Protocol, or developing a linked ‘optional protocol’ under the UNFCCC.”[51]

    Conrad is not a forester, nor does he appear to have any experience in managing or protecting forests. His qualifications are business qualifications, most recently a degree from the Columbia Business School. For the final project of his Executive M.B.A. Conrad looked at whether the money from carbon credits could equal the revenue from logging in Papua New Guinea. His supervisor for this project was Professor Geoffrey Heal, Head of Columbia Business School. When the project was completed, Conrad and Heal persuaded Papua New Guinea’s prime minister, Michael Somare, to start the Coalition for Rainforest Nations.[52] In January 2005, Somare called for the formation of the Coalition for Rainforest Nations at the World Leaders Forum held at Columbia University.[53] In May 2005, Somare was back at Columbia University for the Global Roundtable on Climate Change, once again calling for the Coalition for Rainforest Nations:

    “I have called for the formation of a ‘Coalition for Rainforest Nations.’ To support that call, my government has held discussions at the United Nations with representatives from Peru, Congo, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Mozambique, Tanzania and Zambia – who, together with us, would constitute the largest expanse of rainforest globally under such an issue-specific coalition.”[54]

    Speaking in Parliament a month later, Somare referred to the Global Roundtable on Climate Change as a “Carbon Trading Seminar [that] I addressed at the Columbia University”.[55] Perhaps not surprisingly, the secretariat of the CfRN is in Columbia University.[56]

    Geoffrey Heal, the co-founder of the CfRN, is Garrett Professor of Public Policy and Corporate Responsibility and Professor of Economics and Finance at Columbia University’s Graduate School of Business, and Professor of Public and International Affairs at the School of International and Public Affairs.[57] He is also on the board of the Union of Concerned Scientists and was a Director of Petromin Holdings PNG Ltd,[58] a state-owned oil, gas and mineral company. Kevin Conrad was also hired as an advisor to Petromin.[59]

    Some of Conrad’s business deals are controversial in Papua New Guinea. A recent article in the Australian newspaper, The Age, comments that Conrad “has been linked to a string of failed business dealings in Papua New Guinea.” In 2007, Peter O’Neill, then-opposition leader in PNG accused Conrad (among other things) of “involvement in a failed housing scheme in the 1990s for the Public Officers Superannuation Fund where 17 million kina ($A8million) was paid but not one single house was built.”[60] In an interview with Australian Associated Press, Conrad said, “If you look at PNG every businessman has failed about as often as they have succeeded and the reason is because the government has had too much control.”[61]

    Taking the Pressure of Polluters and Subsidizing Logging
    In his speech at Columbia University, Michael Somare said “Let me be clear, our intentions are NOT to take the pressure off the fossil-fuel emission reductions necessary within industrialized nations.”[62] But on its website, the CfRN states that it aims to “Slow deforestation internationally through the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) and other international investments in forest conservation.”[63] Trading the carbon stored in forests inevitably takes the pressure off to reduce fossil-fuel emissions in the North. One example of this is the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACESA), about which Kevin Conrad is so critical. One of the reasons that the US can get away with such a low target is because of the offsets loophole. A critique by International Rivers and Rainforest Action Network points out that the Act is “is seriously weakened by its heavy reliance on offsets to substitute for actual emissions cuts by large polluters”. Payal Parekh of International Rivers explains that “If polluters indeed use the maximum allowable number of offset credits, domestic emissions in 2012 would increase by 38% rather than decrease by 3%, the reduction that the cap sets. Emissions would not dip below 2005 levels until 2026, 17 years from today.”[64]

    The legislation is further weakened by the inclusion of “sustainable forest management”. As International Rivers and Rainforest Action Network explain:

    “ACESA envisions offset credits for ‘sustainable forestry practices,’ a widely abused term that is too often a cover for expanded industrial logging into primary tropical rainforests. Unless forest degradation is included, even heavily logging a forest, which would result in large emissions, could still generate offset ‘credits’ because full deforestation was avoided.”[65]

    The Coalition for Rainforest Nations’ is also interested in developing ‘Sustainable Forest Markets’. Under this initiative, CfRN’s website explains that

    “In cooperation with the International Timber Organization (ITTO), the Rainforest Coalition will facilitate certification of sustainable logging, develop disincentives to illegal logging and support the establishment of businesses within developing countries that can process lumber locally to the standards of, and in partnership with, end users in industrialized markets.”[66]

    What this means in reality became more clear in May 2009, at the World Business Summit on Climate Change. Business leaders from around the world flew to Amsterdam to discuss how they could profit from climate change. (The website of the Copenhagen Climate Council, which helped organize the event has the headline, “Turning risks into opportunities”[67]). For industry, REDD “presents ample opportunity for the private sector to engage all along a €50-100 billion value chain”.[68] A report produced by the ClimateWorks Foundation for the Summit explains which companies might benefits from REDD: “Companies in forest management, pulp and paper, or construction could build new businesses around carbon abatement.”[69] In its presentation at the Summit, Project Catalyst, which brings together “climate negotiators, senior government officials . . . and business executives emphasized “the size of the prize for business”.[70]

    The assumption underlying sustainable forest management is that by logging less destructively, more trees will be left standing and therefore less carbon will be released to the atmosphere. Here we enter the territory that Dan Welsh, a journalist with Ethical Consumer magazine describes so well: “Offsets are an imaginary commodity, created by deducting what you hope happens from what you guess would have happened.”[71] A recent report by Global Witness, “Vested Interests – industrial logging and carbon in tropical forests”, documents how what the logging industry hopes will happen (or at least says it hopes will happen) in any case releases large amounts of carbon to the atmosphere. Reduced impact logging “kills 5-10 non-target trees for every target tree cut, and releases between 10 and 80 tons of carbon per hectare”. Logging also makes forests more vulnerable to further deforestation and to fire. “During the El Niño events in the late 1990s, 60% of logged forests in Indonesian Borneo went up in smoke compared with 6% of primary forest,” Global Witness notes.[72]

    Campaigns Against Trading in Forest Carbon
    Several NGOs and networks are campaigning to expose the problems with trading the carbon stored in forests, including FERN, Friends of the Earth, Indigenous Environmental Network, the Durban Group, World Rainforest Movement, Rainforest Action Network, Global Witness, The Wilderness Society, Greenpeace and the Rainforest Foundation. By creating a huge number of carbon credits, the trade would allow business as usual to continue in the North. In an interview with The Guardian in November 2008, Joseph Zacune of Friends of the Earth explains that “there is genuine risk that all of these kinds of proposals would provide a get out of jail free card to rich nations. It would allow them to buy their way out of emissions reductions. It would create the climate regime’s biggest ever loophole and would remove any environmental integrity from a post 2012 deal.”[73]

    A Greenpeace report released in March 2009 makes a related point: “Including forest protection measures in carbon markets would crash the price of carbon by up to 75 percent and derail global efforts to tackle global warming.” The report, which was produced by a New Zealand-based economic modelling group called KEA3, found that including REDD credits in carbon markets would reduce investments in clean technologies worldwide, causing a “lock in” effect, leaving high-carbon technologies such as coal-fired power stations in place for many years to come. In addition, the report points out that “significant questions of permanence, leakage, and additionality have been raised about potential REDD credits; as well as the ability of countries to accurately measure, monitor, and report on such emissions.”[74]

    Academics such as Alain Karsenty of CIRAD (the Paris-based International Centre for Cooperation on Agroforestry Research and Development) also point out the dangers of trading in forest carbon. In a paper published last year in the International Forestry Review,[75] Karsenty comments on the uncertainties involved in establishing the impact of REDD measures, which would

    “essentially force experts to disentangle an embedded array of factors, isolating what can be the net impact of policies and measures effectively taken by the authorities to tackle deforestation (i.e. stringent law enforcement, removal of agricultural subsidies, etc.) and external factors such as (involuntary) changes in market prices for agricultural commodities, drought episodes causing forest fires (as well as abnormally high rainfalls).”

    Karsenty concludes his paper with the following statement, “Markets instruments are very effective tools for achieving specific goals, such as improving efficiency of economic agents, but they will probably be unable to change the socio-political context underlying tropical deforestation.”

    Conclusion: Forest Carbon should not be Traded
    The carbon stored in forests should not be traded. There are several important reasons why not, which I’ve covered in this chapter. To summarize:

    First, we need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and stop deforestation. We cannot trade off one against the other.

    Second, carbon markets do not send long term investment signals. A volatile carbon price might be great for investors willing to bet on the future price of carbon. If the carbon price drops during a recession industry is given little incentive to invest in the major changes required. When the economy recovers, the old machinery is restarted.

    Third, there are close parallels between the market in derivatives and the market in carbon. Proponents of the trade in forest carbon talk about ‘innovative financial instruments’, in spite of the current financial crisis.
    Fourth, carbon markets are riddled with conflicts of interest. This may not be illegal, but it certainly makes the sector very difficult (or impossible) to regulate.

    Fifth, trading the carbon in forests is bringing calls for ‘sustainable forest management’, from institutions such as the International Timber Trade Organization that have supported destructive forestry operations for decades. Logging of primary forests (including so-called ‘reduced impact logging’) would release huge amounts of carbon to the atmosphere. Offsetting the carbon supposedly stored in forests subjected to ‘reduced impact logging’ would allow emissions to continue in the North, would lead to forest degradation and destruction on a large scale and would provide an enormous subsidy to the timber industry.

    Sixth, trading the carbon stored in forests would create a loophole for the North, allowing industry to write cheques rather than reduce emissions at home.

    Seventh, forests are not just sticks of carbon waiting for an economist to value them correctly so that they will not be cut down. They are home to millions of people. Defending the rights of indigenous peoples, forest dwelling communities and local communities is crucial to preserving tropical forests.

    The UN climate negotiations are getting more and more complex, while governments’ proposed emissions reduction targets are less and less likely to address runaway climate change. George Monbiot has developed a simple test to show whether governments are genuinely commitment to stopping the climate crisis:

    “whether they are prepared to impose a limit on the use of the [fossil fuel] reserves already discovered, and a permanent moratorium on prospecting for new reserves. Otherwise it’s all hot air.”[76] Governments proposing to trade the carbon stored in forests fail Monbiot’s test because trading REDD credits allows the continued burning of fossil fuels. Hot air, then.

    Notes
    [1] Stuart, M. (2009) “REDD – The Basis of a ‘Carbon Federal Reserve’?“, Cleantech Blog, 8 May 2009.

    [2] “Report of the Conference of the Parties on its thirteenth session, held in Bali from 3 to 15 December 2007 Addendum Part Two: Action taken by the Conference of the Parties at its thirteenth session”, FCCC/CP/2007/6/Add.1*, 14 March 2008.

    [3] See, for example, “Protected Areas: Protected against whom?“, Oilwatch and World Rainforest Movement, January 2004.

    [4] The UN definition of ‘forests’ does not differentiate between an old-growth rainforest and a monoculture industrial tree plantation. See REDD-Monitor for a discussion about the problems with the UN’s definition.

    [5] Tauli Corpuz, V. (2008) “International Human Rights Day 2008: A sad day for Indigenous Peoples“, statement by the Chair of the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, 10 December 2008.

    [6] “Forest Carbon Partnership Facility Takes Aim at Deforestation“, World Bank press release, 11 December 2007.

    [7] Colchester, M. (2009) “Safeguarding Rights in the FCPF“, presentation at the Forests, Governance and Climate Change meeting organised by the Rights and Resources Initiative and Chatham House at the Royal Society, London, 8 July 2009.

    [8] Butzengeiger-Geyer, S., P. Castro, R. Harthan, D. Hayashi, S. Healy, K. Magnus, Maribu, A. Michaelowa, Y. Okubo, L. Schneider, and I. Storrø, (2009) ‘Options for utilizing the CDM for global emission reductions’, Report to the German Federal Environment Agency , 4 June 2009, p. 3.

    [9] Harvey, F. (2009) “EU carbon prices plummet as emissions continue to fall“, Financial Times, 17 February 2009.

    [10] Kevin Smith (2009) “The Climate Camp vs the Carbon Market“, Transnational Institute, 26 February 2009.

    [11] Kanter, J. (2007) “In London’s Financial World, Carbon Trading Is the New Big Thing“, New York Times, 6 July 2007.

    [12] Lang, C. (2008) “Day one in Poznan: UN doesn’t discuss REDD, Conservation International does“, REDD-Monitor, 1 December 2008.

    [13] Lohmann, L. (2006) “Carbon Trading: A Critical Conversation on Climate Change, Privatisation and Power“, Uppsala: Dag Hammarskjold Foundation.

    [14] “Memorandum submitted by The Corner House” to the UK Parliament select committee on the role of carbon markets in preventing dangerous climate change, 1 March 2009.

    [15] Ball, J. (2008) “Up In Smoke: Two Carbon-Market Millionaires Take a Hit as UN Clamps Down – EcoSecurities Sees Shares Slide 70 Per Cent“, Wall Street Journal, 14 April 2008.

    [16] “Memorandum submitted by The Corner House“.

    [17] Goodell, J. (2006) “Capital Pollution Solution?“, New York Times, 30 July 2006.

    [18] Specter, M. (2008) “Big foot“, The New Yorker, 25 February 2008.

    [19] “Money grows on trees“, The Economist, 6 June 2009.
    I wrote a summary of research carried out by two journalists about carbon trading in Papua New Guinea here: Lang, C. (2009) “PNG update: Yasause suspended, dodgy carbon credits and carbon ripoffs“, REDD-Monitor, 2 July 2009.

    [20] Gridneff, I. (2009) “‘Sample’ documents blamed for PNG carbon deals“, Australian Associated Press, 15 June 2009.

    [21] Gridneff I. (2009) “PNG climate office director suspended“, 9 News, 1 July 2009.

    [22] Loder, N. (2009) “The carbon rip-off“, Overmatter blog, 11 June 2009.

    [23] Monbiot, G. (2007) “Hurrah! We’re Going Backwards!“, The Guardian, 17 December 2007.

    [24] According to an article in Klima magazine, Gore pockets US$300,000 for each of public speeches. Plus expenses. “Wie sich der Klima-Guru mit alten Vorträgen immer aufs Neue die eigenen Taschen füllt“, Klima Magazin, Nr. 01, 11 January 2009.

    [25] Tucker, S. (2004) “Blood and Gore launch firm with a difference“, Financial Times, 8 November 2004.

    [26] “Green firm Camco gets Blood and Gore investment“, Reuters, 4 June 2009.

    [27] “Key Developments For Camco International Limited“, Reuters, accessed 20 June 2009.

    [28] Twidale, S. (2009) “Ken Newcombe”, Trading Carbon, 3(3): 16.

    [29] Twidale, S. (2009) “Ken Newcombe”, p. 16.

    [30] “Major World Bank Programs: NGO participation“, World Bank Annual Report 1997.

    [31] Lang, C. (2004) “The carbon spin doctors: How the World Bank explains emissions trading to journalists“, World Rainforest Movement Bulletin, 84, July 2004.

    [32] Desai, P. (2006) “Carbon Emissions Market Comes of Age“, Reuters, 31 March 2006.

    [33] Twidale, S. (2009) “Ken Newcombe”, p. 16.

    [34] Twidale, S. (2009) “Ken Newcombe”, p. 16.

    [35] “Forest Trends’ History“, Forest Trends website.

    [36] See, for example, “Broken Promises: How World Bank Group policies and practice fail to protect forests and forest peoples rights“, World Rainforest Movement, 2005.

    [37] “Board Members, Forest Trends website, accessed 20 June 2009.

    [38] New Forests website.

    [39] “Board Members“, New Forests website.

    [40] Zwick, S. (2009) “Environmentalists, Financiers Commemorate Decade of Forest Trends“, Ecosystem Marketplace, 22 May 2009.

    [41] Lohmann, L. (2008) “Climate Crisis: Social Science Crisis“, a chapter for Der Klimawandel: Sozialwissenschaftliche Perspektiven, VS-Verlag.

    [42] “Emissions Trading“, Barclays Capital website.

    [43] “AWG-KP 8 Officers“, UNFCCC website.

    [44] Bullard, N. (2008) “Who is Harald?“, New Internationalist, 412, June 2008.
    See also, Lang, C. (2008) “Pöyry: The economic hit men of the pulp industry“, in Plantations, Poverty and Power: Europe’s role in the expansion of the pulp industry in the South, World Rainforest Movement, December 2008.

    [45] Harvey, F. (2009) “Carbon trading poised to decline“, Financial Times, 24 February 2009.
    I made this comment in a draft article I wrote for Point Carbon’s magazine Trading Carbon. Perhaps not surprisingly the comment was not published in Trading Carbon. “Your comments on Point Carbon may be valid in a wider context, but were irrelevant in a feature on why REDD shouldn’t be in the carbon market. Those criticisms could be made of any number of companies in a wide range of fields”, the editor of the magazine, Robin Lancaster explained (in an email dated 1 April 2009). Lancaster also deleted all reference to Al Gore, Ken Newcome and Richard Sandor from my article on the grounds that in the eyes of the law they haven’t done anything wrong. I agree. I’m not accusing them of having broken any laws. Lancaster added that “all of the edits and decisions on the piece were made by me as editor as is the case with every word of editorial in the magazine.” The same issue of Trading Carbon included a profile of Ken Newcombe written by Susanne Twidale.

    [46] Bellassen, V., R. Crassous, L. Dietzsch, and S. Schwartzman (2008) “Reducing emissions from deforestation and degradation: what contribution from carbon markets?”, Mission Climat of Caisse des Dépôts, Climate Report No 14, September.

    [47] Szabo, M. (2009) “Carbon exchanges cashing in amid EU slowdown“, Reuters, 17 February 2009.

    [48] “PNG’s Kevin Conrad in Bali: US, Get out of the Way!“, CNN – YouTube.

    [49] Conrad, K. (2009) “Moving to the environmental age”, Trading Carbon, 3(3): 24.

    [50] The Coalition for Rainforest Nations’ website lists the following countries as participants: Bangladesh, Belize, Central African Republic, Cameroon, Congo, Colombia, Costa Rica, DR Congo, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Equatorial Guinea, El Salvador, Fiji, Gabon, Ghana, Guatemala, Guyana, Honduras, Indonesia, Kenya, Lesotho, Liberia, Madagascar, Malaysia, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Samoa, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Suriname, Thailand, Uruguay, Uganda,Vanuatu and Viet Nam.

    [51] “Initiatives: Carbon Emissions“, Coalition for Rainforest Nations website.

    [52] Sessions, E. (2005) “Using the Tools of Business to Inform Environmental Policy“, The Record, Columbia University, 31(6), 28 November 2005.

    [53] “Highlighted Events: World Leaders Forum, Columbia University (Jan. 15, 2005)“, Coalition for Rainforest Nations website.

    [54] “Climate Science: What Do We Know?“, Global Roundtable on Climate Change Spring 2005, The Earth Institute at Columbia University.
    Somare’s powerpoint presentation, Rainforests and Climate Change, is available here, and his speech is available here.

    [55] “Answers to questions without notice – from Member for Markham, Hon. Andrew Baing“, Parliament House, Monday, 20 June 2005.

    [56] “About the Coalition“, Coalition for Rainforest Nations website.

    [57] “Geoffrey Heal“, Coalition for Rainforest Nations website.

    [58] The Union of Concerned Scientists website states that Heal is a Director of Petromin. He is not included in a list of Directors on the Petromin website. However, he is listed as a Director on an undated “Information Brochure for the Media” on Petromin’s website. Heal’s Curriculum Vitae, dated February 2008 states “Director, Petromin Holdings PNG Ltd. (The national oil, gas and mineral company of Papua New Guinea) 2007 on.”

    [59] “MPs in uproar over Petromin“, Post Courier, 1 March 2007.

    [60] Gridnef, I. (2009) “Climate hero under fire in PNG“, The Age, 8 May 2009.

    [61] Gridnef, I. (2009) “Climate hero under fire in PNG“.

    [62] Statement by Sir Michael T. Somare, GCMG KSt.J CH, Prime Minister of Papua New Guinea, Global Roundtable on Climate Change, Columbia University, New York, 12 May 2005.

    [63] “Context: Recognizing Forests’ Role in Climate Change“, Coalition for Rainforest Nations website.

    [64] Parekh, P. (2009) “Waxman-Markey Bill: No Cuts until 2026!“, International Rivers website, 15 April 2009.

    [65] “Analysis of the Waxman-Markey Draft“, International Rivers and Rainforest Action Network, 15 April 2009.

    [66] “Initiatives: Sustainable Forest Markets“, Coalition for Rainforest Nations website.

    [67] Copenhagen Climate Council website.

    [68] “The Business Case for a Strong Global Deal“, prepared for the World Business Summit on Climate Change by the ClimateWorks Foundation, 2009.

    [69] The Business Case for a Strong Global Deal“.

    [70] Reyes, O. (2009) “Carbon trading and cash values on forests cannot curb carbon emissions“, The Guardian, 28 May 2009.

    [71] “Debate – Carbon Offsetting“, Together Works, 11 June 2007.

    [72] “Vested interests – Industrial logging and carbon in tropical forests“, Global Witness, 4 June 2009.

    [73] “Deforestation: ‘Genuine risk of biggest ever loophole’“, The Guardian website, 25 November 2008.

    [74] “REDD and the effort to limit global warming to 2°C: Implications for including REDD credits in the international carbon market“, prepared for Greenpeace by KEA3, 30 March 2009.

    [75] Karsenty, A. (2008) “The architecture of proposed REDD schemes after Bali: facing critical choices“, International Forestry Review, 10(3).

    [76] Monbiot, G. (2009) “How Much Should We Leave in the Ground?“, The Guardian, 6 May 2009.

    1. Ok Kefa,
      I too can cut and paste and re hash incorrect and irrelavant media and blog coverage.
      I would also like for you and Paul to understand that the ‘media’ in its majority is actually Australian Government controlled and major finacial instutions owned.
      Please becareful what your little brains actually digest as most of what you read is only properganda for political and instutions agendas.
      However the discussions and forum of topic are encouaged by all.
      To go into complete detail could be dangerous for something that is quite simple at this point of time.
      I am in PNG now, I can assure you that your PNG developer is the most advanced stratigist who makes everything happen and has a genious touch to his personality.
      The rest of the world will takes his lead.

  28. Hi Folks,

    My name is Peter Turner. I’m an ex Kiap who has lived in PNG since 1971.

    I have lived and worked in both the Public (21 years) and Private sectors in the Southern Highlands, Sandaun, West New Britain, Simbu, Madang, Western Highlands, Morobe and Bougainville Provinces and for much of the past 20 years, in Port Moresby. Half smart, I have Masters Degrees in Law and Justice and like to think that I’m on the side of the grass roots, as I am related to heaps of them through my Rabaraba Missus.

    Most Moresbyites recognize me as that dim din traffic policeman who is always giving the beat up PMV’s a hard time. A Reserve copper for the past 20 years, this is my way of putting a little back, and it also gives me the opportunity to enjoy what most “elites”, local and overseas, do not have; constant contact with “ol iet”.

    My last few jobs, AusAID Governance/Management Adviser with the PNG Health Department and CEO of a local Recruitment Company have allowed me to travel constantly to anywhere in the country that I felt like visiting.

    For instance, I have visited every mine site, gas or oil field and agricultural development in the country, and some forestry projects, and I can confidently state that the US State Department has an overly censurious view of the labour conditions in rural and remote localities.

    I sure do thinlk that the Malaysians could devote a little more to safety conditions and worker protection at the plywood factory at Bulolo, but the mob like the employment opportunities nonetheless.

    The Celestials tend to treat their PNG workers like they do their own and quite often the PNG workers get up nogud, because the European businesses invariably maintain very high standards, to which PNGer’s have gotten used to.

    Some of the forestry sites are pretty basic and the further you get away from the King, the less the rules and regulations get observed. Sometimes a nasty personality turns up and tries to run things like the Japanese ran the Burma Thailand Railway, but on the whole everyone knows what side of their bread the butter is.

    Prices in the “Company Stores” have always been a bit high, but every plantation in the country has had one of these forever and the newer extractive industries are just doing the same old thing.

    As for forced labour? Rubbish! It’s true that quite a few Asian foreigners “escape” from whatever they came to PNG to do, and find themselves more conducive positions, quite often not equipped with the proper Government permits and visas.

    Forced labour? Well in the old days, I didn’t give my “kalabus lain” any choice as to where I put them to work, cutting grass or building roads etc., but then the sentence was “hard labour” something that todays kalabus do not know anything about.

    Ladies of the Night in remote locations? Comfort women for the workers? Perish the thought! Don’t tell me that someone has actually woken up to the fact that PNG is a “frontier” and that like on all those frontiers, current and previous, Rafferty tends to set the rules.

    I used to think that I was a “Greenie”, but then I’m the one who issued licenses for all those shotguns that the Bosavi people then used to significantly increase their protein intake, and cut down on the damage that the feral pigs would do to their gardens, in the early 1970’s.

    Boy did I get a caning from higher up when they found out, but I tell you what, the mob made me very welcome when I patrolled the Bosavi villages after that.

    Given that these days every single Highlands family has a gun of some variety, ranging from assault rifles, to more commonly, very long barrelled, smooth bore Kentucky type hunting shotguns, the few dozen popguns that I licensed did not have a significant impact upon the environment. ‘Sure made those Guria Pidgeons a lot more timid and careful though!

    I must admit, I would have preferred to issue a treated mosquito net to every inhabitant that I came across, but Rotary International doesn’t patrol the Bosavi villages, and neither does anyone else anymore. Or anywhere else, for that matter.

    RH is now harvesting the Great Papuan Plateau and you can bet your life that the Bosavi’s are not getting anything near what would be fair, but they are getting “something”; and if you have nothing, “something” is bloody good.

    From what I have read in posts above, there is a lively discussion going on regarding the environment. Interesting stuff, and some of the riposte’s are quite humerous.

    Tim, I’m sure that Paul uses both hands to type, but do you think that he can change hands and gain a stroke?

    I’de like to be a Greenie, but maybe I’m too much of a pragmatist. I know damn well what the mob will do with their trees, whether their more enlightened confreres like it or not.

    I see it happening all over the country and seeing is believing. The mob are doing just what the Solomon Islanders did, and the Malasians, and the Indon’s ( and the Australians too).

    The only way that the West have been able to save their forests is to make them National Parks. So OK, use some of the LNG money to alienate big heaps of virgin forests. I’m sure that ‘ol iet’ would rather sell their trees so that their environment stays pristine for their continued use and enjoyment, but sell it they will, one way or another, and RH is there now.

    Hey Paul, don’t give up though. Someone’s has to represent and spread the light!

  29. Tim,
    I would like to know about PNG developer’s strategy & hope that it is workable for the rest of the world.

    Mero, everyone knows that the media is business and is tied to governments, however, it is a medium of which one can use to his/her advantage. Use your little brain to digest the events; surely you know whether an information is shit or not.

    You only need to tell me how to finance saving rainforest, is it from the giant companies or developed countries? Otherwise, Paul is dead right, PNG just needs to appreciate its forest and forest owners should take initiative to preserve it before its too late. Why the heck is money & climate change propaganda used to save forest. Its all too clear, isn’t it.

    The prime minister and PNG government spearheading the CfRN, is it really genuine? I think not. If the PNG Government is serious, then Peter Tuner’s suggestion above is the way to go. Its seems everyone’s in it for a gain. What about PNG developer…

    1. Kafu,
      The developer does keep his intentions and plans close to his chest, because of past media and strange opposition comments and threats of his integrity from National and International out spoken critics.
      It has always been explained to myself , from his team that only completed stages of the process will transparent to the media.
      I can assure you that the developer has always maitained that each forest Incorporation owned by its ILG’s will manage its forests by the Incorporated act of PNG.
      Any policy or framework is completed by the this process.

  30. Apinun ol wantok,
    Picking up specks from todays post couries http://www.postcourier.com.pg/20100126/news03.htm, Nupan Ltd is progressing well with its second voluntary carbon trading project in East Pangia…

    I gather Nupan Ltd is getting VCS defined as voluntary carbon standards which involves ascertaining”carbon credits” by “verification standard” which it is going to “sell on the world market”.

    Sounds like a big business on the stock exchange of buying & selling carbon credits. The agenda is “business but saving forest”.

    OK now I’m interested! Tell me more…

    1. The business is simply,
      saving the forests and its ‘biodiversity, and ‘hydrology’ and bring money back to ‘PNG’ for its people.

      The progression of the business will be transparent on its final sign off and transfer of funds for the ‘real’ value of each credit.

      What is your actual interested ? the fact that you can’t read this process from a book or from the Internet, or any Government or world leader is not able to explain to you as (if they would if they would know) or that a logical thinking family of enviromentalists were able to out think the populas and be able to deliver.
      PNG should be very proud of their developer he works non stop.

      1. Sounds too good to be true!

        So tell me tim, who are you and what is your qualification? Some self appointed, know it all environmental, commercial and climate change auditor?

        Since when did Papua New Guineans agree for you to verify and provide ‘assurances’ to us on matters that concern us? How independent are you from Kirk Roberts.

        Who is going to buy the carbon credits from us, especially when currently there are debates going on about whether REDD is indeed the right solution for global warming? There are many people who do not believe this is the right apprach to addressing the problem. And if they are correct, then there goes your get rich quickly carbon dream.

        Mate we all loathe RH and their illegal and systematic destruction of our forests, but I’m not sure this is the right approach to kick these corrupt boofheads outta here.

  31. copied post:

    PNG Forests and Carbon Trading

    There has been an announcement that carbon trading has commenced in PNG.
    This has been hailed by Mr Kirk Roberts, head of Nupan (PNG) Trading Co. who
    is quoted in the PNG Post Courier of 26th January 2010 as saying: “This is
    a fantastic thing for PNG, who has chosen to take advantage of
    commercialised carbon trading while the rest of the world talks and talks.
    And the bottom line is PNG saves their rainforests from logging now, while
    providing a living and income for the landowners next 100 years.” What Mr
    Roberts hasn’t revealed however, is how his claim will be substantiated.

    The claimed amount of around K200,000 that was distributed to the
    Incorporated Land Groups (ILG’s) in East Pangia in PNG’s Southern Highlands
    is remarkably similar to the reported K200,000 previously paid to a Mr James
    Kond, a business associate of Mr Roberts and apparently for services that
    were never fully explained.

    The article raises more questions than it answers. In any public business
    arrangement, there has to be transparency between those participating in the
    arrangement and public. Does the PNG government recognize this arrangement,
    given that the previous government Office responsible for these matters has
    recently been reorganized? Are the payments to be taxed or untaxed and who
    is responsible and accountable for the distribution of these public monies?

    No details were provided as to where the funds originated or what those
    unnamed providers of this largesse expected in return for their
    contributions. If K500 is to be distributed between the estimated thousands
    of people who were reported to be at the signing of the agreement it won’t
    go far if everyone gets a cut. Speaking of cutting, it was claimed that
    these agreements will stop timber companies from cutting down the forests
    covered by the agreements yet exactly how this would be policed was not
    explained. The Southern Highlands reportedly contain regions that are
    virtually in a state of civil war with very limited government control. What
    happens when and if the initial payments are spent and a timber company then
    offers to buy the trees? Has there been a survey on which trees are in the
    area covered by the agreement and which trees are not covered? Has there
    been a full and independent examination of who are the rightful owners of
    the trees?

    300 people signed up with Nupan (PNG) yet the details of what was apparently
    agreed to have not been provided. All this potentially nefarious agreement
    claims is it will; ‘start a carbon trading project to prevent logging in the
    area and preserve their rainforests for future generations.’

    An unnamed ‘project scientist’ is quoted as saying during the ceremonies
    that: “the people would need to actively work in the forests every month, to
    provide data and manage the condition of the trees.” Exactly who the people
    would be reporting to and how this would be managed was not however
    revealed. The report then went on to claim: ‘It is expected that thousands
    of jobs will be created by this process, which will provide employment for
    generations to come’, but did not elaborate how this would happen.

    For those who have seen these promises happen so many times before, without
    transparency and proper planning, the initial hype of a project such as this
    so often leads inevitable disappointment when the full details become known.
    Without further details, the potential for this to be revealed as yet
    another ‘cargo cult’ or ‘win moni ikamap nating’ is exceedingly great. If
    that does eventuate, it will only exacerbate the disappointment and
    frustration of the forest owners and further enhance the plans of the timber
    companies and their offers of buying and felling the trees. Where will Mr.
    Roberts be then I wonder?

    1. That’s it Paul.

      There is potentially a very high price to pay if carbon trading does not occur as Roberts is promising us, and when people’s high monetary expectations are not met.

      Nupan is making very definite statements about how carbon trading will occur at a time when the whole thing is still shrouded with clouds of UNCERTAINTY. Not very wise, isn’t it?

    2. Nupan has many scientists contracted.
      As mention on this blog previously transparency and commercial in confidence is a fine line that is managed by the Incorporations in their own incorporated way for the protection of their business and PNG.
      At this point of time ‘all’ information” to the public must be controlled because of the media confusion.
      I have been advised to suggest for your viewers to go to http://www.carbonowontok.org to ask any questions that may interest them regarding.
      To note the website is accumalating much information.
      Everybody I am not from PNG although I am here now, but I do represent International enviromentalists who understand , appreciate and support your PNG developer as ensuring the world of the right course of action.
      I am told to say that time will answer most of your present questions as time answered your past questions.

      1. Do you agree that had Nupan shared the ‘facts’ it says it possesses, there wouldn’t be much ‘confusion’ as you claim?

        Why is there such a hush hush about the whole thing? Name those ‘many international scientists’ who are contracted by Nupan and we will do our own independent background checks to get some comfort on their expertise. How many of these ‘international scientists’ have published competent papers about the subject in their professional journals and had them peer reviewed? How many of their work have stood up to open and transparent scrutiny?

        Tim, just because you say ‘they are international scientists’ doesn’t impress me. 1 because I don’t know who you are and, 2 because I don’t know who these scientists are. Is there a chance they could be some idiot from the streets?

        If Nupan is fair dinkum about the whole thing, then BE TRANSPARENT right from the word go. Only people who have something to hide will do things in such secrecy and use handy props like ‘international scientists’ to try and impress and silence us.

        And NO! Many of the past questions here and elsewhere remain UNANSWERED.

      2. Hey Tim,

        Is this the answer you were expecting? (from The National). Kaikai we wantok?

        ____________________________

        We won’t be fooled’
        Source:
        By PATRICK TALU

        FORESTRY resource owners from the East Pangia Forest Management Area in the Southern Highlands province have refused to sign a document but recieved a K500 sitting allowance.
        The allowance was paid to the 471 chairmen of integrated landowner groups (ILGs) by Tyebo & Associate and Nupan Trading PNG Ltd.
        “We are confused. Why are we being paid?” ILG chairmen Noah Taru, Pastor Patrick Piko and Nelson Mandie said.
        All three men said the allowance offered was for five months and that they did not know what they had to sign or why they were being paid.
        Pr Piko and more than half of the 471 ILG chairmen told The National on Sunday in Apanda village that they feared their resources would be sold off by just putting their signatures on an unspecified document.
        Pr Piko said the ILG chairmen did not sit for any meeting and the company did not even explain why they had to sign before getting their allowance.
        “We are suspicious of being lured into signing an agreement tied to the allowance,” said Pr Piko.
        Molo clan chairman Madie said he had 62 family members and that it would be selfish of him to accept the allowance while his family members did not get anything,
        “Even if I had to share amongst my members, the amount would not be enough,” he said.
        Mr Taru described the K500 cash payout as “a cargo cult act”.
        “We don’t know why we have to sign before we get the payment. I am concerned about my children’s future.
        “Without knowing the volume of the carbon sinks in my forest, I certainly would not want to sell my resources off cheaply to foreigners,” he said.
        Nupan Trading PNG Ltd director Kirk William Roberts refused to comment when The National located him at the Highlander Hotel.

    3. Paul please explain proper planning.
      enhance timber companies?
      what if it does eventuate? then what Paul.
      Roberts has 4 scientists on his payroll and another 3 contracted, and he decided to protect them for as long as he can.
      The signing of the ILG’s is part of the process
      The arrangement is Commercial Incorporated under the Incorporations act of PNG as you have been told many times.
      If the Government wants to tax the Induvidual ILG’s then they should then go to the bush and give each a taxfile number then tax them, idiot.

  32. Ok Tim,
    I am interested because carbon credits is becoming a commodity that is sold on stock markets if I’m right. Part of me wants to get involved because definitely, our trees can be saved. But another me thinks that the people who scammed this trading of carbon in the pretext of climate change are somewhat money craving mongrels. And worse making money at the ignorance of unsuspecting forest owners.

    The way I see it, Mr Kirk is going to broker for you Tim, and then give you some money if the trading is good. For some reason if the price fell at Wallstreet, then you loose. Just like normal stock market trades.

    See, these are my queries because initially I thought it would be like governments or corporates will be directly putting money up to forest nations to offset their climate change effects like huge factories etc… Now I’m reading “trading of carbon credits on the world market”.

    Olsem Longlong man itok ya…if no body wants to trade carbon credits that what, I fear a foresighted trend where people wouldn’t care anymore if greenie concerns cos money is attached to such important aspects of saving forests.

    But I am hoping all the best for these pioneers including the Mr Roberts.

    1. ok Longlong man who the hell are you?
      as I have explained my position on this blog.

      The International scientists who have been contracted by Nupan are most experienced in the world for many, many reasons the first reason is they perform as the proof is in the work completed to validation at the present level of scrunity, which will become public record on the completition of the ‘whole’ project then projects.

      As far as I am concerned Nupan is fair and dinkum and achieves and completes everything set forward.To add they put their money where their mouths go.
      Who in PNG or the world can meet this performance?

      Unfortunlatley there are only few people and Incorporations in the world who are successful at ‘business’ and who know how to make a profit legally.
      The stratergies raised are being taught to the rescource owners of PNG who are learning quickly and are also been taught to appreciate their future and respect their resources and proposed placements for their forest people and PNG.

      The old saying Longlong man, ‘loose lips sinks ships’

      good luck.

    2. Paul the article is incorrect and fraudulent,
      The people in the photo do not come from the Southern Highlands.
      The resource area has 400 ILG’s.
      and 95% signed.
      again you are not thinking before you press send, and this is a perfect reason everyone why the developer keeps everything close to his chest.
      to add The National newspaper is owned by RH.
      MP Peter O’Neil and Mandang logging company with RH are trying to log the east Pangia forest against the peoples wishes.
      The people of east Pangia contract Nupan for this reason in March 2008,
      When ever will you get it right Paul,
      I do really need to meet you Paul, outside with sleeves rolled up, because you are totally f—k.

  33. I am PAPUA NEW GUINEAN and I have seen enough scams and bullshits in this country to be very sceptical.

    I am the resource owner you and Nupan are trying to steal from. What is your cut in all of this? And how much is Nupan paying you for the excellent PR job you are doing for them?

    Who are you and what the hell are you doing in my country?
    Are you Australian? If yes, then I will tell you this. Papua New Guinea will be better off without Australian arrogance. We don’t need your charity and we certainly don’t need your sympathy. WE DO NOT NEED YOUR BIG BROTHERING business. If you are not going to be transparent with your dealings here, then I suggest you piss off now.

    Mate, why don’t you tell me the name of just one of your international ‘scientists’, just one, and get off the hook?

    1. Each forest is owned by its ILG’s.
      you longlong man if you have a forest, is most welcome to originate your forest if you can because I can assure you it can not be done by PNG.
      Try and find out brains, and your comments as above will prove the idiot you are.

  34. hey Longlong man, in our discussion of PNG developer of carbon trade, names that are closely linked together are on their website: http://www.carbonowontok.org

    Here is an excerpt: “Mr. Timothy Tepi, Chairman of the 274 ILG’s, Mr. James Kond, Koo Management and Vice President of the Alliance Party, Highlands Region, and Mr. Kirk William Roberts, of Nupan (PNG) Trading Corporation Limited”.

    Another excerpt: “This follows the launching last Saturday of a local landowner company called Tiyebo & Associates Tribes of East Pangia Ltd at the remote Apenda village in East Pangia which was witnessed by more than 6000 people and representatives of international carbon trade broker and developer Nupan PNG Trading Corporation Ltd. Tiyebo & Associates would act as catalyst for the 274 incorporated landowner groups (ILGs) from the East Pangia Forest Management (FMA) Area to part take in the carbon credit trade project. Mr Timothy Tepi, managing director of Tiyebo and Associates said the ILGs and people in the East Pangia FMA area want to bid for the carbon trade credits through reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degrading (REDD) programme”.

    We can try to ask Tim, Kond or Kirk to tell us more and this other “expatriate Tim” on this blog also if you could enlighten whole of PNG.

  35. kafu,

    i am only challenging the “i know what’s best for you so don’t ask me” attitude that is displayed by tim.

    if Nupan and its associates can be open and transparent in their processes, then i’m sure we can generate some very healthy discussions and debates on the subject to ensure our people gain from this trade, if it happens, in a sustainable way.

    how many times have we seen people with patronising attitudes lead our people blindly into something they never really understood and came away with heart aches and tears?

    why are people still treating us as if ‘nau tasol mipla kam aut long hul blong ston’? why can they not reason with us?

    1. no, wantok o nogat is not the point. na mi no wari sapos em wanpla wantok.

      taim ol man i laik askim na save, noken traim long stopim ol sapos yu no wanpla otority. displa kain pasin blong hait na mekim wok em ino gutpla tumas. mipla i mas save na klia gut long wonem samting ol narapla man olgeta long narapla kantri i laik mekim long ol busgraun blong mipla.

      displa em point blong mi.

    2. it seems Kafu you want to Carbon Trade your forests.
      If you are nice to Roberts he may be able to turn your forest are into a annual return for the next 108 years.

  36. Longlong Man,
    I have to say amen to your last post. I am with you and understand what you mean. While I would like to see a our forest saved, I hate it when people are trying to do business in the pretext of genuine causes like climate change or global warming!!!!!.

    I read this in today’s post courier: http://www.postcourier.com.pg/20100128/focus.htm

    This goes to show a whole lot of chaos & confusion, the world body is sceptical of carbon trading!! While no one country has regulated frameworks on this whole thing, can someone tell me who is buying & selling carbon credits?

    1. nau yu klia kafu.

      i am not trying to turn off genuine friends of PNG in helping us in our efforts to develop and find our rightful place in the gloabl community. but what i don’t like is for people to take us for a ride.

      we must be treated with respect and no one must insult our intelligence. we are as capable of reasoning and deduction as anyone.

      1. In business there is no such thing as genuine friends.
        The only help the Global community offer PNG in this topic is to ‘grab your land’ and utilise the PNG forest areas to offset the biggest polluters.
        Then pay PNG a added subsity to the original subsity that increases and decreasers before the payments are delivered.
        Similar to charity in which the distrubution decreases the actual original agreed allotment.
        Like Paul I could go on and on which will make your face go red and you could get that dizze that you mite wonder what you are talking about.
        Anyway with all due respect Long long man you should only speak for yourself, get your hands off it, and dream of respect and try and be intelligent.

      2. dear tim,

        i know am interlligent and i don’t need you to tell me i am.

        you should start getting intelligent and name names to substantiate your arrogant claims. otherwise, you should shut up and stop standing up for your friend roberts.

        allow him to defend himself, will you?

  37. Carbon traders slammed as neo-colonial exploiters.

    The PNG govt has failed to protect landowners from carbon traders, says Greenpeace

    Posted at 05:48 on 28 January, 2010 UTC

    A Greenpeace forest campaigner in Papua New Guinea says the government has failed to stop unscrupulous carbon traders from buying up rights to forests from indigenous landowners.

    Dorothy Tekwie’s comment comes amid media reports of various carbon traders, mainly Australian, forcing PNG landowners into questionable deals, often with the assistance of local officials.

    She says the PNG government has established no legal framework or policy on carbon trading to ensure its people are protected from traders looking to make easy money off them.

    “It is a new colonisation of our future. It is raiding of PNG people’s heritage by people who we have always had high regard for. Australian carbon traders are actually raiding this country, just as the Asian loggers had raped and ripped this country’s forests off.”

    Dorothy Tekwie

    News Content © Radio New Zealand International
    PO Box 123, Wellington, New Zealand

    1. Greenpeace are a charity that costs a fortune,
      Dear Dorothy has no solution and makes strange comments.
      There is no substance in her comments other than properganda.
      Congradulations Dorothy and keep trying.

  38. Thanks Paul & Peter,
    Clearly this Roberts & Tim are opportunists. They are trying to tie down the forest owners resources by making them sign for carbon trade so once trading occurs, they will be master of the cakes with greedy knives to cut what the local landowners may rightfully deserve.

    Nupan Ltd is just pushing its business desires in the pretext of climate change. Come out and explain to us how your strategy works, otherwise you are nothing more than white man opportunists, pushing your luck.

  39. Hi y’all,

    Having any confidence in what anyone is saying depends very largely on who that person is.

    When I was rash enough to share my views and experiences, above, I was careful to explain just who I am, my background and my qualifications, so that my verity could be evaluated.

    Much of the posted discussion above is anonomous pusturing and postulating. Much is very good stuff. Letting a little more light upon the correspondents would help support their views.

    Sam Johnson said that”patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundral”, but I disagree, anonimity is.

    Kapu, you are an excellent Moderator and the wheat seems to be getting seperated from the chaff. Keep up the good work hamone.

    God Bless,

    Peter T.

  40. Thanks Peter Turner,
    My name is Kafu Peg and I am doing correspondence course in business studies. Regarding this present subject, I am taking the lead and have lodged a registration for an ILG (incorporated land group) for my people, our area bordering Marengo Mine, Gulf & Marawaka, quite a huge pristine rain forest area.

    Many in PNG consider us as the “back pagers”, meaning we are least developed in term of basic government services, inaccessible by roads and still living by subsistence farming (forest dependency).

    One good thing though is due to our remoteness and untouched forest, many expats come to do research & expeditions. There are talks of conservation already mentioned however getting basic services is an ongoing desire for all.

    You can understand why we were quick to embrace the idea of “carbon trade”. However, I thankfully, am learned enough to take precaution in everything I do, thus holding out this far and my clansmen are thinking otherwise.

    I am therefore seeking open discussion on this issue of carbon trading especially if its gonna work for others like in East Pangia who are comparably more developed than us then the truth must be told because it is a matter of life & progression to me than others in PNG…..

  41. ‘Onya Kafu,

    Is there anything that might help with your studies,? Emmanuel has my e mail address.

    Cheers mate,

    Paul

    1. Hey Tim,

      Pliz ia.

      Spit the dummy, get cross, get frustrated but leave the threats of violence off the air.

      Your spelling has deteriorated at the same pace as your temper. Take it easy Bro. Kool down.

      Your point of view is not without merit and wholeheartedly embraced by the pragmatists, don’t denigrate your position by flying off the handle.

      God Bless,

      Peter T. (Sarjen bilong Four Mail Traffic)

      1. Point taken Sarjen , Maths has always been better than English especially when I am tied.
        Paul is a annoying type of person, I have been sparring with him since his dingo comments which were a lot of rubbish.
        The fact is, that the PNG developer has a extrordinary focus which he finds ways to bring to reality.
        I am as my associates protective of him and his vision, as it is so special.
        ‘rollin up the sleeves outside’ is not a threat, but a comment for people as Paul who speaks out of turn and in this case promote properganda from media speculation.
        So Peter Turner blog on as I enjoy your comments.

  42. A letter in today’s The National:

    Carbon trade project not easy

    IT is sad to note that the landowners from Pangia, Southern Highlands province, giving their power of attorney to Kirks Robert of Nupon Trading in return for K500 to each ILG chairman. I doubt whether the landowners understand the lengthy procedures involved in the carbon trade.
    The carbon trade project is lengthy and complicated however, if the landowner partners like Nupon Trading are genuine then it will properly develop the project and share the benefits equally with the people. I am trying to understand how the benefit-sharing would be like when the certificate is issued for the project to sell its carbon credit. I would like to appeal to many forest resource owners who may want to join this association, Pacific International Carbon Trader Association PNG Incorp and in particular the Oro Landowners Association, to be wary. Clans have contributed K1,100 to the latter this organization whose chairman is Ian Bogino and who we are reading about now in the newspapers. I suggest that the forest resource owners to enter into dialogue with genuine international partners as there are many reputable international organisations who would be keen to enter into partnership to develop the carbon trade project through mutual respect and understanding so that both parties benefit. I understand procedures and processes on carbon trade but I wonder whether people like this Oro Landowners Association understand the project or which forest areas qualify for the carbon projects. Forest resource owners should not be fooled by carbon traders who would exploit their resources to become rich.

    John Kawowo,
    Gordons, NCD

    ______________________________________________

    Surely the details in this letter it can’t be right? Giving another the Power of Attorney is not a simple thing to do. It can effectively give the power to another to legally act as yourself.

    Does anyone know more about this claim?

    BTW – Here’s another saying just for Tim: ‘He who throws mud loses ground’.

  43. Timbo,

    Asking someone ‘outside’ has always been an invitation to ‘biffoi’ in my book.

    ‘Just as well you were only using the phrase metaphorically, as I believe Paul Oates is 6’4″ tall and built like Arnold Governator.

    Anyway. About this Power of Attorney thing. Those documents have to be
    produced by a Lawyer, to ensure that they are properly compliant (bucks!) and then they have to be registered (more bucks).

    The document only applies to individuals and not Corporations or Associations.

    As Paul points out, ILG’s cannot engage in commercial matters and I doubt if the Associations Incorporation Act would be the correct legal vessel to bring these Groups together into any sort of enforceable association.

    I reckon Paul, Kafu and Longlong have seen enough exploitation and fly by night schemes to be highly suspicious of any new projected commercial venture but I think that most people will wait until the Government takes the lead and starts promoting something tangible, something bedded in legislation.

    I recall then Minister for Minerals and Energy, Karl Stack, telling me that PNG was going to make a fortune in carbon trading, back in 1977. The idea has been around for a while, lets hope that it turns into an exploitable resource.

    Personally, I have great faith in ‘ol iet’. It’s a brave man that tries to con ’em, though it seems that Noah “shit for brains’ Musingku has gotten away with it so far.

    Mind you he will never be able to show his face outside his village without wondering from which direction the swinging tomahawk will come!

    Staff well,

    Peter T.

    1. Peter T,
      Anyway whats wrong with a good ole fashion biffo out the back, to sort out the men from the worms.

      I love em tall and big as they fall harder and most of them cry when they hit the ground.

      What can a Lawyer tell you Peter.

      The ILG’s are registered with Incorporations and own approx 97% of PNG, tell them they cannot engage in commercial matters,.
      I dare anyone to challenge that in any jurisdiction, to add it has been scruinisted and approved by the International commuties as a unquie ‘land tenure’ system.

      The world has no International mechanism in place and will proberly never ever be able to, some say from 2016, but really the issue that the EU and USA have and then China will leave it as is as the shame of renewables still hovers.
      Peter I have just left POM and I have studyed your Government offices for the last 3 weeks ,do you really think the PNG Government could ever take charge of anything let along a complex stratergy as Carbon Trading and its Social responsibilites that will meet with the International verifiers and buyers of PNG forest credits.
      Ok Peter ask Karl Stack how do you create a return from a forest area that will deliver annually, and then you will understand the world as well as PNG is just talk talk, except for your PNG developer who has committed and produced.

      I will leave you all ,as I am in transit through Australia to Europe as we speak.
      I have so much information gathered from PNG this trip, and I can assure you that your developer is so advanced and is now preparing to deliver to PNG.

  44. Hi Kafu,

    Excellent. Those people that take advantage of the legislation that affords representation and protection to Landowners interests, will see their descendents reap the benefit.

    The various Acts relating to Land Registration are going to be very useful in the future, to those who take advantage of them.

    Mostly they are most beneficial to reasonably small groups, and the whole Clan or Sub-Clan has to be onside, but given that the Huli’s will eventually claim to be the original landowners of everywhere, it doesn’t hurt to get down on paper who actually owns land.

    I saw a Clan near Kundiawa register their land on a small plateau just outside of Kundiawa on the Gumine Road, in the early ’70’s and they have now established commercial and government infrastructure, leased bits and pieces and are doing very well. Someone in that lain was very smart indeed.

    Cheers,

    PT

    PS : Isn’t the Marengo prospect near Bundi in the Madang Province?

  45. Hello Peter T,
    Before I proceed, let me confirm that you are right, Marengo prospect is near Benabena and Usino Bundi area of Madang Province. What I should have said was my area is inside the Marengo Mine propecting border, Bismarck range to the north & Gulf to the south. To be exact 7deg lat, 146deg longitude. The intention was to point out that mining is coming in from what we hear that while Bundi is operational, prospecting will continue in all over these license areas.

    Anyway, back to carbon which I would prefer over mining, Tim’s recent confirmation that he is an associate of Roberts, I would like to ask if Tim can give us a brief idea of their strategy. I did query in previous posts which procedure are they looking at, (i) buying & selling carbon credits as commodity? or (ii) pooling funds from developed countries & giant corps?

    ILG registration as you say Peter, is becoming vital for clan groups, but I’ve just realised that this combines with land title and its another headache for me. I have also found out that Incorporated land groups (ILGs) are under the associations’ umbrella, Paul is right & as you suggested these registered ILGs must combine to form an association with a constitution that represents their business interest, some see it otherwise, but this is current legal framework that businesses relating ILGs function.

    Hey Tim, shed some light here & pls make an attempt to answer my 2 simple queries!!!

  46. Thanks Paul, a very exciting site on conservation. I would encourage others to read: http://forests.org/blog/

    Timothy in post courier has hinted the Nupan Ltd strategy in yesterday’s post courier: http://www.postcourier.com.pg/20100204/news21.htm. Quoted excerpt: “Compliance market will be determined on November 2010 in Mexico until 2012 while for the voluntary market, there is no control mechanism and therefore we are working on the VCS standard, together with a developer,” Mr Tepi said.”

    Its almost like an answer to my “2 queries” I enquired in my last post here. Also a business umbrella company to administer all ILG interest.

    Ok Timothy, thanks, I guess I need to read more on “voluntary carbon trading markets” then???

  47. Interesting article from wired.com. Seems the cowboys are working both ends of the carbon trading system!

    Hackers Steal Millions in Carbon Credits

    * By Kim Zetter Email Author
    * February 3, 2010 |

    Credit card numbers are so passe. Today’s hackers know the real powerhouse data to steal is emission certificates.

    That’s exactly what hackers went after last week when they obtained unauthorized access to online accounts where companies maintain their carbon credits, according to the German newspaper Der Spiegel.

    The hackers launched a targeted phishing attack against employees of numerous companies in Europe, New Zealand and Japan, which appeared to come from the German Emissions Trading Authority. The workers were told that their companies needed to re-register their accounts with the Authority, where carbon credits and transactions are recorded.

    When workers entered their credentials into a bogus web page linked in the e-mail, the hackers were able to hi-jack the credentials to access the companies’ Trading Authority accounts and transfer their carbon credits to two other accounts controlled by the hackers.

    Under environmental cap-and-trade laws, there’s a limit to the greenhouse gases companies can emit. Companies that exceed this limit can purchase so-called carbon credits from entities that produce fewer greenhouse emissions than the limit provides them.

    The scheme has produced a robust market for the trade of credits. More than 8 million tons of CO2 emissions worth $130 billion were traded in Europe last year.

    According to the BBC, it’s estimated the hackers stole 250,000 carbon credit permits from six companies worth more than $4 million. At least seven out of 2,000 German firms that were targeted in the phishing scam fell for it. One of these unidentified firms reportedly lost $2.1 million in credits in the fraud.

    The credits were resold for an undisclosed sum. The buyers, who likely believed the transactions were legitimate, haven’t been named.

    The German Emissions Trading Authority has suspended access to its databases for a week while an investigation is underway.

    The fraud is the latest example of hacks aimed at gaming environment controls. A year ago, hackers penetrated the Brazilian government’s quota data for Brazilian rain forest products — allowing the illegal poaching of more than 1.7 million cubic feet of timber.

    1. More crap,
      what does European hackers got to do with people who are originating forests to create carbon credits in PNG Peter.(so called carbon cowboys)
      Are you one of those fat australians working for the Department of Enviroment and Conservation in PNG?
      Or maybe you could be Ilya from AAP.

  48. Greenie Cap – stop being abusive and try and listen to some simple economics, as you seem to have a problem seeing the forest for the trees :).

    Carbon Credits are worth heaps of money! If I get a power of attorney from a landowner group in PNG (which is what Kirk Roberts is busy doing) I can produce Carbon Credit certificates which can be sold to western polluters (like power companies) to offset their emissions. They will pay a lot of money to me because they can use these Credits to keep polluting without being heavily taxed by their home countries. There is even a stock exchange system for trading Credits internationally.

    This is why the cowboys like Nupan have been so quick to jump into PNG and sign up as many landowners groups as they can. Carbon Credits are therefore as good as trade-able currency. Nupan have found a way to ‘legally’ print money for nothing! (just a promise from landowners not to cut down their forests). The hackers in Germany know this only too well which is why they have ripped off German companies by stealing Carbon Credit certificates worth around $4 million so far.

    This of course all assumes that Carbon Credits are authentic, verifiable, subject to authorization in some way by the PNG authorities, and measurable by international standards! (that is you can prove that so much carbon tied up in your trees has been preserved over time). NONE of these systems are yet in place in PNG, so the whole damn thing is a con.

    What chance do the poor bloody landowners have? – they’ve just given powers of attorney to Nupan to do whatever they want with their credits. (NB A power of attorney (POA) or letter of attorney in common law systems or mandate in civil law systems is an authorization to act on someone else’s behalf in a legal or business matter.)

    Also please note that offsetting emissions through Carbon Credits does NOT produce a net reduction in carbon emissions globally anyway. It merely minimizes a future possible INCREASE in emissions by preserving forests that might otherwise be cut down. In fact at worse it could allow polluters to INCREASE their emissions if they obtain a surplus of credits to offset their increased pollution.

    The whole thing is worthy of our old friend Noah Misingu.

  49. Thanks Peter & Paul,
    Keep on pouring out those truths so local forest owners should be wary of such “carbon cowboys”.

    Greenie Cap, you sound so fanatical & narrow minded on this issue of carbon trading. What good can you contribute on the down side of trading carbon credits, for arguments sake, you are in favour of companies to keep producing green gas emissions & on the other hand you are hoping the bought credits will reduce climate change impact. Illustratively, your two legs are wide open, one for and the other against!!!

  50. Hey Namesake,

    “What chance do the poor bloody landowners have?”

    Interesting question!

    Have you had a look at the ‘Land Groups Incorporation Act 1974’?

    Tim asked above, what have Lawyers got to do with anything?

    Well, I reckon a bloody sight more that Scientists, Developers etc.

    All this business of ILG’s, Associations of ILG’s, Power of Atorney’s etc.

    is in fact quite complicated legally.

    For instance, taken that:

    (1) An incorporated land group–
    (a) is a corporation; and
    (b) has perpetual succession; and
    (c) may sue and be sued in its corporate name as set out in its constitution; and
    (d) for the purpose of the more effective exercise and performance of its powers and functions, may do and suffer all things that a corporation may do or suffer.

    and

    an incorporated land group may–
    (a) acquire, hold and dispose of customary land and rights in or in respect of customary land, in the manner (if any) and to the extent (if any) allowed by custom; and
    (b) acquire, hold and dispose of other land and rights in or in respect of other land; and
    (c) use and manage the land, or enter into agreements for the use or management of it; and
    (d) borrow money or accept property on credit for the purposes of the preceding provisions of this subsection; and
    (e) distribute any product of the land or any profits arising out of the use or management of it.

    to incorporate an ILG, the below is required;

    (1) Before recognizing a group, the Registrar shall–
    (a) give and promulgate the appropriate notice in accordance with Section 33; and
    (b) call for and consider comments from any Local-level Government or Village Court to which notices are to be given under Section 33(1)(i) and (j), and from the proposed dispute-settlement authority; and
    (c) consider any comments made by any person referred to in Section 33(2),
    and may call for and consider any other information that he thinks relevant.

    and Section 33 says,

    33. PUBLICATION OF CERTAIN MATTERS.
    (1) The Registrar shall cause notice of–
    (a) all applications for recognition under Section 5; and
    (b) all grants of certificates of recognition under Section 5; and
    (c) all applications for the variation of certificates of recognition under Section 9; and
    (d) all variations of certificates of recognition under Section 9; and
    (e) all orders for winding-up under Section 15; and
    (f) all vesting orders under Section 18; and
    (g) all orders for dissolution under Section 18,
    to be–
    (h) published in the National Gazette; and
    (i) given to any Local-level Government in whose area–
    (i) the group or any of the property of the group; or
    (ii) any property that is proposed to become property of the group by virtue of the recognition,
    is situated; and
    (j) given to any Village Court within whose jurisdiction the group is, or will on recognition come.
    (2) In addition, the Registrar shall publicly promulgate notice of a matter referred to in Subsection (1)–
    (a) in such manner as he thinks most likely to ensure that it is generally known to persons having–
    (i) a knowledge of or an interest in the affairs of the group or of the members of the group; or
    (ii) a knowledge of the relationship between the group or members of the group and other persons and customary groups; and
    (b) in such other manner as is directed by the Minister.

    and

    8. CONTENTS OF CONSTITUTION.
    (1) In addition to any other matter required by this Act, the constitution of an incorporated land group as set out in the certificate of recognition must set out–
    (a) the name of the group; and
    (b) the qualifications for (and disqualifications, if any, from) membership of the group; and
    (c) the title, composition, membership and manner of appointment of the committee or other controlling body of the group; and
    (d) the manner in which the group acts, and the manner in which its acts are evidenced; and
    (e) any limitations and conditions of the exercise of the powers conferred by this Act on the group; and
    (f) the name of, or other means of identification of, any custom in accordance with, or subject to which, the group is to act; and
    (g) details, as required by Section 21, of the proposed dispute-settlement authority and the rules (if any) applicable to it; and
    (h) an address for service; and
    (i) any rules, not inconsistent with this Act, applicable to the conduct of the affairs of the group; and
    (j) any other matters that the group, with the approval of the Registrar, desires to have included in the constitution; and
    (k) any other prescribed matters

    the actual work involved in incorporating an ILG is substantial and could probably only be done with any guarentee that it was being done properly
    (unless there are still some savvy Kiaps around to lend a hand), by a Lawyer.

    These ILG’s are a lot more complicated that the new updated Companies Act

    If it is not done properly, the Registrar will reject the Application, and did you see all the crap that has to be gone through in advising a whole bunch of people and organizations of every little change or alteration?

    You know, I haven’t seen too much of any of this business in the newspapers and I wouldn’t mind betting that probably 100% of those who would wish to use this legislation, have been frustrated or disappointed.

    I wonder if the Registrar would tell us just how many of these vaunted ILG’s have acttually been approved. Zilch, I’ll bet.

    So if Scott is traipsing round the bush with a tame Kiap in tow, or a Lawyer, I’de say he is wasting his time.

    To answer your question, even if all of the above comes true, but there is a problem, the “Winding Up” or bankruptcy provisions for ILG’s gives almost complete protection to the members, ol Lendona.

    My guess is that is why the Boss of the Carbon Trading Department got the boot. ‘Seems, his printing press ran too far ahead of the Registrar of ILG’s rendering the whole process just so much hot air.

    The continued complexity of people trying to utilize their land, legally, and with the protection of some regulatory body will continue to frustrate people for years to come, probably generations.

    Otherwise Karl Stack would have arranged the mechanisms for carbon trading 30 years ago.

    Hooray for Lawyers!

    Peter T. Ll.M

    ,just to incorporate an ILG

    1. Peter T. LlM.
      it seems you are looking for a job.

      To make sure the ILG’s are Incoporated “correctly” ,, Peter but is it true lawyers are now becoming obsolete or rather the easy data avalible is not allowing them to be as smart as they were trained or they induvidually think.

      Your

      1. Hi Cap de Greenie,

        There aren’t enough Lawyers in the Region to compile properly, the required number of applications to incorporate Indigenous Land Groups, involved in the proposed level of carbon trading, for any contractual arrangements to be legal.

        Nah, Lawyers will never become obsolete. Someone has to be trained to interpret Legislation. As our system of law is based upon British Common Law, it is necessary to have a body of people who know what precedents apply and where to find them.

        There is a lot more involved in being a Lawyer than being able to google up the consolidated legislation

        As our court system is adversarial by nature, it is necessary to have Lawyers to represent or argue various points of view.

        As a Reserve Magistrate from 1971 to 2000 I can tell you that the courts are one of the very few institutions in PNG that still have any veracity, or in which the people entrust complete faith.

        Being a Lawyer in PNG is to belong to an illiustrious profession and there are many constraints that ensure that the bad eggs get weeded out, eventually.

        As for looking for a job? I wouldn’t live or work anywhere but God’s Own Country, PNG.

        Make me an offer!

        Peter T.

      2. Hi Cap de Greenie,

        There aren’t enough Lawyers in the Region to compile properly, the required number of applications to incorporate Indigenous Land Groups, involved in the proposed level of carbon trading, for any contractual arrangements to be legal.

        Nah, Lawyers will never become obsolete. Someone has to be trained to interpret Legislation. As our system of law is based upon British Common Law, it is necessary to have a body of people who know what precedents apply and where to find them.

        There is a lot more involved in being a Lawyer than being able to google up the consolidated legislation

        As our court system is adversarial by nature, it is necessary to have Lawyers to represent or argue various points of view.

        As a Reserve Magistrate from 1971 to 2000 I can tell you that the courts are one of the very few institutions in PNG that still have any veracity, or in which the people entrust complete faith.

        Being a Lawyer in PNG is to belong to an illiustrious profession and there are many constraints that ensure that the bad eggs get weeded out, eventually.

        As for looking for a job? I wouldn’t live or work anywhere but God’s Own Country, PNG.

        Make me an offer!

    2. Peter.
      I was wondering how the lawyers have understood this recent ‘Bill” put forward by Dr Wari Iamo.
      Please dont be lost now, I am waiting without patience for your thoughts, as what chance have these ‘Landowners have now”

      Do you actually understand where DEC are trying to go, not just here but beyond.

      Come on if you need a job, give me your thoughts.

      so then I could give you an instruction.

  51. Carbon trading – Nupan riding high – from todays PC…

    Rush for carbon trade on

    By MOHAMMAD BASHIR

    With the PNG LNG project only looking to impact directly on the Huli people, there is a mad carbon trade rush in the Southern Highlands and parts of Western Highlands provinces.
    About 95 per cent of ILG’s from West/East Kambia, NebIlyer, Pabarapuk, East Pangia and South Wiru have mandated their carbon credits through Nupan PNG Trading Corporation Limited – headed by advocate Kirk Roberts on the voluntary market.
    Nupan Corp Ltd scientists two months ago have calculated the carbon sinks for East Pangia and South Wiru area and are working on the final methodology with PDD to be completed by the end of next month.
    Mr Roberts announced last Friday that the ILG chairmen had given him the mandate and also warned that; “There will be groups of carbon traders claiming to be real carbon traders to trade your carbon credits coming around by this weekend through all of Southern Highlands Province so people must be aware that your credits are very special and make a right deal before you sign up anything,” he warned.
    He said; “Once the PDD is verified by the VCS standard, the international verifier will come to East Pangia and South Wiru to commission the projects to the VCS standard. This will be to certify us through the voluntary market as required by the CCBA standard in line with international communities who are supporting the project to be one of the first in the world to trade carbon credits as required on the voluntary market,” Mr Roberts said.
    He urged ILG chairmen from East Pangia and South Wiru to be patient and wait so that he could deliver in a month’s time.

  52. Will PNG follow suit?

    Indonesia announces 2-year moratorium on deforestation

    ABC

    Indonesian president Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono says he will introduce a two-year moratorium on deforestation, a large source of income for his country which also contributes heavily to global warming.

    “We will … conduct a moratorium for two years where we stop the conversion of peat land and of forest,” Mr Yudhoyono said at a joint press conference with Norwegian prime minister Jens Stoltenberg a day before an international deforestation conference starts in Oslo.

    The decision was part of a deal reached with Norway, which has agreed to contribute up to $US1 billion to help preserve the Indonesian forests.

    Together with Brazil, Indonesia boasts one of the world’s largest rain forests, which function as global “lungs” that transform carbon dioxide into oxygen.

    The country however also accounts for a large portion of the world’s deforestation, especially on the islands of Sumatra and Borneo.

    Palm oil producers have especially caught the attention of environmental protection groups.

    According to Greenpeace, forests covering the equivalent of 300 football fields are eradicated every hour in Indonesia, which along with Malaysia produces 80 per cent of the world’s palm oil, used for cosmetics, food and fuel.

    A Norwegian negotiator said the moratorium would take effect “immediately”.

    “There is of course a lot of illegal logging,” said Hans Brattskar, who heads up the International Climate and Forest Initiative, launched by the Norwegian government.

    “But the conversion of the forests and the peat land into plantations and for industrial use, especially for paper and palm oil production, represents a very large part of deforestation in Indonesia,” he added.

    “It is therefore important to emphasise the Indonesian authorities’ courage in depriving themselves of potential future revenue sources.”

    Mr Yudhoyono acknowledged it was difficult to find the right balance between the socioeconomic interests of his people and the fight against climate change.

    Norway will begin support for Indonesia’s efforts by enabling the country to set up a control mechanism to help fight deforestation, and as of 2014 the Scandinavian country will offer aid contingent on Jakarta’s progress.

    “If there is no reduced deforestation, we will not pay. If there is reduced deforestation, we will pay,” Mr Stoltenberg told the press conference.

    According to the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, deforestation is responsible for 17 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions, which is more than all the world’s modes of transport combined.

    The Norwegian aid to Indonesia will come out of the three billion kroner ($555 million) that the country puts aside every year to fight deforestation around the world.

    Norway, which owes its prosperity to its vast oil and gas reserves, has already signed similar agreements with Brazil and Guyana.

    -AFP

  53. Peter,
    UNFCCC has stated that they will not start their supposed distrubution until 2014.
    Norway did state that illegal logging must be reduced for support of our funds.
    (interesting comment that could even make the comics)

    I say where is this pledged monies now’ and were are the prober commercial documents or structured permanent placements to prove that it excists.
    But still there are no mutral Internationl agreements to suggest that the media hype of billion’s of US dollars pledged is real, and the terms and conditions that they will demand will become interesting and will take many years if ever to agree, so 2014 could easly be 2017 +.
    Ok you might think I am being compliance negative, but at the end of the day
    try and understand ‘Norways” comment as above,it is a perfect example of attitudes and money.
    So we all live on and we are at this point of time, at the stage of countries pledging monies they dont have.
    We have the UNFCCC promoting that media hype to support the World Bank and their failed process.
    Mean while everything goes on as it was except for a few realists and polluters who would like change for the better of the enviroment.

    Consider the amount of money that has and is being wasted on all these friviouls UNFCCC meetings,were non decission makers flock.
    We are being lead by the corrupt who are blind.

  54. While this agreement looks promising, the devil will be in the detail. What the article doesn’t say is how the agreement will be policed? The mention of an ‘aid contingent’ sounds distinctly like a ‘boomerang’ AusAID proposal. Let’s hope this isn’t just another attempt at ‘window dressing’?

    Nonetheless, the Indonesian President is to be congratulated and supported for agreeing to this arrangement. It can’t have been easy, given the pressure on land use in his country.

  55. Do you think the Indonesian Government will be able to stop illegal logging as Norway instructs.
    I wonder how much of this supposed1 billion is dedicated to Indonesia , this President is going for the ride and if something turns up then thats a bonus.
    ‘Or’ maybe he has been smart and asked for a contribution to progress with the UNFCCC requirements if they excist, but the contribution request might be just to have himself and Indonesia involved for the UNFCCC to say they are dong something, although they have no mutal mandate and I am wondering about USA , China and India of were they fit in here.
    Did something happen after Copenhagen ? that we did not hear about ,or sorry that will be released after Mexico, they are even f–king up their own media properganda now.
    Weigh up the supposed pledged countries so far, how many of them are near bankrupt, in fact they could be economically worse than Indonesia.
    Please dont excuse Germany here.
    All in all the situration makes this President look good even if the UNFCCC does not deliver , except if evidence appears to the contry , example illegal loggers found in direct contact with the President or his staff or illegal loggers become in arguement between themselves, or what ever headline is manifested..
    Any way I will bet my left proverbal that ‘some’ reason will lead to an excuse not to pay, because at the end of the day no Government wants to pay unless there is a return for around 3 to 1, especially Norway.
    How could that money be returned?

  56. Check out in Oslo tomorrow another stratergy.
    this time
    The Government of Norway have unleashed Norway’s ‘pay-per-results-plan for Indonesia.
    Can you believe it.
    This of course has been announced at the UNFCCC meeting for Forest – Preservation Program in Oslo today.
    The meeting in Oslo is also to try and convince all the ‘rich’ contries to contribute to their mechanisum that they call REDD+, I think .
    How many rich countries who want to contribute are on the planet?
    I wonder why so many countries are only sending their pawns to this circus.?

    How could the supposed billions of US dollars ever be allowed to be managed through these clowns associated with the UNFCCC and World Bank.
    Do they really expect people to be miss lead as Copenhagen and the constent rubbish media reports of 100″s of billions.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s