In the run-up to the summit in Copenhagen there has been much talk about climate change and the need for immediate concerted global action. A very recent report has decreased the time-line for corrective action considerably and pressure for a successful summit has increased even more. But, unsurprisingly, the US has already dampened hopes for any binding agreement whilst China, surprisingly, has emerged as a front-running eco warrior.
In the mean time, commentators have suggested that maybe we should be looking to companies, as opposed to states, for climate leadership (see, for example,
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/06/opinion/06diamond.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1 ).
This is an interesting perspective and, in terms of social responsibility and sustainability, a great leap forward. Nevertheless, it may be prudent to take all this with a pinch of salt.
A perfect case study is the relationship between Indonesia and one of the world’s largest pulp and paper factories, Asia Pacific Resources International Limited (APRIL). On the one hand, Indonesia, the third-largest contributor to global warming (after the US and China), must desperately seek to limit its greenhouse gas emissions, much of which stem from the peat land in the Kampar Peninsula. However, to date, the only detailed plans for carbon-cutting action in the Peninsula have been submitted by APRIL who, as critics point out, is in fact a significant contributor to the problem in the first place and is desperately seeking further logging concessions.
Given the global crisis and the need for action sooner rather than later a proactive approach – for whatever reasons (see the New York Times for a discussion: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/30/science/earth/30climate.html?_r=2&ref=global-home ) – would appear to be the required step. And surely we should welcome any remedying action by contributors to the climate dilemma. But at what cost exactly is this pro-climate action being taken? A joint report by the NGOs Forest Peoples Programme (FPP) and Scale Up (http://www.forestpeoples.org/documents/asia_pacific/indonesia_rights_briefing_oct09_eng.pdf) explains that 33,000 people depend wholly or in part on the forests in Kampar Peninsula. However, APRIL’s proposed plans would “imply clearance of the degraded forests around the periphery of the Peninsula and, as presented, does not specify where local people would make their living or what rights they would have in the newly designated plantations, buffer zones or core conservation areas.”
Further enquiries by the NGOs revealed that APRIL had already secured 97,000 ha of plantation permits in the Peninsula. “None of the communities had been given clear information about the project, no efforts had been made by the company to assess communities’ land use systems or customary rights, no measures had been taken to identify their representative organizations, and no negotiations had been undertaken to secure their agreement to the proposed project.”
As commentators have pointed out, APRIL’s green plan appears to have finally gained them access to an area protected by permit requirements. There is no doubt that climate action must be taken now and that companies play an invaluable role, however, it would be tragic if we allowed ourselves to become blinded to rights abuses covered up by greenwashing campaigns. Although green efforts are welcome, they don’t paint the whole picture.
Daphne Guelker
Research Associate
