This article was downloaded by: [University of Sydney]On: 11 March 2013, At: 15:12Publisher: Taylor & FrancisInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office:Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Climate PolicyPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscriptioninformation:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tcpo20
Community perceptions of REDD+: a casestudy from Papua New GuineaMatthew Leggett a & Heather Lovell aa School of Geosciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, EH8 9XP, UKVersion of record first published: 04 Aug 2011.
To cite this article: Matthew Leggett & Heather Lovell (2012): Community perceptions of REDD+: a case studyfrom Papua New Guinea, Climate Policy, 12:1, 115-134
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2011.579317
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantialor systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, ordistribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that thecontents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae,and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall notbe liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of thismaterial.
Community perceptions of REDD+: a case studyfrom Papua New GuineaMATTHEW LEGGETT*, HEATHER LOVELL
School of Geosciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH8 9XP, UK
REDD projects have received considerable attention for their potential to mitigate the effects of climatic change. However, theexisting literature has been slow to assess the impacts of proposed REDD projects on the livelihoods of forest communities inthe developing world, or the implications of these local realities for the success of REDD+ initiatives in general. This studypresents ethnographic research conducted with communities within the April-Salomei pilot REDD+ Project in Papua NewGuinea (PNG). Several cases of institutional biases and uneven power relationships have been exploited by local elites to preventlandowners from making free and informed choices about their involvement in the project, although landowners and localcommunities are well positioned to capture forthcoming project benefits. By underestimating the scale and impact of traditionalshifting cultivation practices, the credibility of the REDD+ project design and the value of any future carbon credits arecritically undermined. Based on the actual practices found in PNG, the authors radical proposal is to call for a halt on REDDdevelopment in PNG while institutional enabling conditions are improved, comprehensive landowner consultations conducted,and detailed mapping and genealogical surveys of landowners completed. Without these developments, future REDD+projects in PNG are unlikely to benefit either the global climate or local development.
Keywords: avoided deforestation; community participation; forest communities; land tenure; Papua New Guinea; REDD+; usagerights
Les projets REDD ont recu beaucoup dattention pour leur potentiel a` mitiger les effets du changement climatique. Cependant, lalitterature courante a ete lente dans lestimation des impacts des projets REDD proposes sur la subsistance des communautesforestie`res dans les pays en developpement, ou la portee des realites locales sur le succe`s des initiatives REDD+ en general.Cette etude fait lexpose dune recherche ethnographique menee avec des communautes au sein du projet pilote REDD+ April-Solomei en Papouasie-Nouvelle-Guinee. (PNG). Plusieurs circonstances de partis pris institutionnels et de relations depouvoir irregulie`res ont ete exploitees par les elites locales pour faire obstacle aux proprietaires fonciers dans leur information etliberte de choix en ce qui concerne leur relation au projet, bien que les proprietaires et communautes locales soient bien placespour recevoir les benefices futurs du projet. En sous-estimant lampleur et limpact des pratiques traditionnelles de cultureitinerante, la credibilite de la structure des projets REDD+ et la valeur des credits carbone futurs sont gravement compromis. Surla base des pratiques actuelles en PNG, la proposition radicale des auteurs est dappeler a` la halte au developpement de REDDen PNG, en attendant que les circonstances institutionnelles soient ameliorees, quune meilleure consultation des proprietairessoit menee, et quune enquete geographique et genealogique detaillee du regime foncier soit conclue. Sans cesdeveloppements, les futurs projets REDD+ en PNG seront peu susceptibles de faire beneficier soit le climat mondial soit ledeveloppement local.
Mots cles : Communautes forestie`res; deforestation evitee; droits dusufruit; Papouasie-Nouvelle-Guinee; participation des
communautes; REDD+; regime foncier
n case study
n *Corresponding author. E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
CLIMATE POLICY 12 (2012) 115134
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2011.579317 # 2012 Taylor & Francis ISSN: 1469-3062 (print), 1752-7457 (online) www.tandfonline.com/tcpo
2 11 M
International policies towards tropical forest conservation are changing rapidly. Tropical forests play a
vital role in supporting the livelihoods ofmillions of the poorest communities in the developing world
aswell as a unique biological diversity (Huberman, 2007, p. 3; IUCN, 2009). However, it is onlywith the
growth of international concern regarding rapid climate change that concerted efforts have beenmade
to place an economic value on the ecosystem services provided by the vast carbon storeswithin tropical
forests and to develop a mechanism that provides financial rewards for reducing forest destruction
(Asquith et al., 2002; Corbera, 2005; Oestreicher et al., 2009).
The first steps towards the creation of such amechanismwere takenwith the implementation of the
Kyoto Protocol in 1997 (UNFCCC, 1998), under the United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change (UNFCCC). However, although the original agreement committed industrialized
nations to significant reductions in the emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs), by excluding the emis-
sions reductions achieved by the avoidance of deforestation from the Protocols carbon accounting and
trading scheme (Wainwright and Wehrmayer, 1998), it controversially failed to provide a financial
incentive for developing nations to curtail deforestation. As a result, a further proposal to compensate
countries with revenue generated from carbon finance was introduced by the nations of Papua New
Guinea (PNG) and Costa Rica at the 11th Conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC (COP 11) in
2005, on behalf of the Coalition for Rainforest Nations (CfRN) (Wainwright and Wehrmayer, 1998;
Howes, 2009; Oestreicher et al., 2009). The proposal, entitled Reducing Emissions from Deforestation
in Developing Countries; Approaches to Stimulate Action, called for the development of an initiative
to reward countries that promoted a reduction in emissions from the deforestation anddegradation of
forests with payments generated from international markets selling carbon credits. This initiative,
REDD as it has become known, was widely supported. By COP 13 in 2007, the initiative had
become REDD+ and further encompassed conservation, sustainable forest management and theenhancement of forest carbon stock. The process of developing and piloting a flexible mechanism to
capture thefinancial incentives from the cessationof deforestationwas thereby instigated (Wainwright
and Wehrmayer, 1998).
The development of a functioning REDD+mechanism fromaproposal onpaper into a set of policiesand actions that can be effectively implemented at a project level is now of paramount importance.
Research has shown that the destruction and degradation of the worlds forest accounts for between
12% and 18% of annual GHG emissions, and remains one of the principal anthropogenic drivers of
climate change, with only the energy and industry sectors responsible for more annual global emis-
sions (IPCC, 2007). Statistics further demonstrate that, despite global efforts to reduce GHG emissions
from all sectors since Kyoto, current global trends indicate a rapid and inexorable increase, with emis-
sions from tropical deforestation remaining a key catalyst in this rise (Angelsen, 2008). Critically, it has
also been argued that the impacts of climatic change also threaten to undo decades of development
PNG is a country emblematic of the challenges facing developing rainforest nations in the Global
South. Despite its rich natural resources (recent surveys indicate that between 50 and 70% of the
countrys 46.4 million hectares remain covered with largely undisturbed lowland rainforest) and a
relatively stable political climate, the country remains extremely poor, with an estimated 40% of
the population living on less than US$1 a day (UNDP, 2009; AusAID, 2009; Shearman et al.,
2009). A heavy reliance on extractive mining and forestry projects has historically contributed
most to the nations GDP, but has simultaneously threatened the future livelihoods of the 87% of
the population who depend on natural resources for their subsistence needs (WHO, 2007; Shearman
et al., 2009). Recent papers have argued, not uncontroversially, that current rates of forest
116 Leggett and Lovell
2 11 M
degradation and deforestation remain comparable to those found in the Amazon basin, with recent
projections indicating that, by 2021, 83% of commercially accessible forest in PNG will have been
cleared or degraded (Shearman et al., 2009; Filer et al., 2009). In the context of carbon emissions,
the scale of the deforestation and degradation of PNGs forest becomes clear: approximately 98%
of the countrys carbon emissions are generated from land-use change and forestry (Shearman
et al., 2008, p. 4, 2009; WRI, 2009).
The significant challenges faced by PNG are further magnified when examined in light of the over-
whelming complexity of the nations cultural and political landscape, where governmental and non-
governmental institutions struggle tomeet the diverse needs of over 800 language and ethnic groups in
a nation where most communities remain accessible only by foot (WHO, 2007). The REDD+mechan-ism is therefore of crucial interest to PNG for both its potential climate mitigation benefits and its
capacity to generate additional gains for both biodiversity conservation and sustainable development,
including contributing to poverty reduction and strengthening indigenous rights (Corbera, 2005,
p. 43; Howes, 2009).
TheGovernment of PNG therefore remains conspicuous at the forefront of global REDDdiscussions,
and efforts to develop functioning REDD+ projects, both in the Voluntary Carbon Offsets (VCO)market and at a national level, are ongoing. After the establishment of the PNG Office for Climate
Change and Environmental Sustainability (OCCES) in 2008, the April-Salomei Forest Management
Area (FMA), located in the Hunstein Range, a remote region of East Sepik Province, was initially ident-
ified as the first of four pilot REDD+ project sites in PNG.An investigation of the April-Salomei project forms the empirical basis for this article, drawing on
ethnographic research conducted with rural communities situated within the proposed April-Salomei
project area in the period May to July 2009. The research sought first to assess the development and
structure of the proposed April-Salomei REDD+ project, then to evaluate local community awareness,understanding and willingness to participate in it, and, finally, to analyse the implications of the
project for community livelihoods. The article is structured as follows. In Section 2, relevant literature
on carbon markets, forests and development is reviewed. The existing literature has largely failed to
examine the impacts of existing or proposed REDD+ projects on the lives and livelihoods of forestdwelling communities in the developing world, or the implications of these local realities for the
overall success of REDD+ initiatives (due at least in part to a lack of functioning projects on theground). Thus, the focus in this article is on the few existing community-based studies of REDD+(Asquith et al., 2002; Cotula and Mayers, 2009) as well as other community-based research that has
sought to identify and describe unequal power relations and their implications for the management
of natural resources (Bass et al., 2000; Brown et al., 2000; Huberman, 2007; Bumpus and Liverman,
2008). In Section 3, the background to the April-Salomei Sustainable Forestry project in PNG is dis-
cussed, with an outline of events and decisions that led to its establishment in 2008. As relatively
little detailed community-based research on REDD+ within communities has been conducted (Huber-man, 2007), the research methodology is briefly outlined in Section 4, and some of its limitations are
considered in this context.
In Section 5, the three main findings are presented and analysed: (i) that communities in the study
region were neither fully aware of the existence of the April-Salomei project nor understood the
concept of REDD+, despite it being in the advanced stages of project design; (ii) that communityand government elites had exploited institutional biases and uneven power relationships to actively
prevent indigenous landowners from making free and informed choices about their involvement
with the REDD+ project; and (iii) that the existing project design had seriously underestimated theextent of traditional shifting cultivation practices on the forest area and failed to account for this
impact within the REDD+ project design.
Community perceptions of REDD+ 117
2 11 M
In Section 6, it is argued that the findings of the study emphasize the critical value of an anthropo-
logical and community-based perspective of institutional power disparities when designing and devel-
oping REDD+ projects and that the impact of the subsistence strategies of rainforest dwellingcommunities in determining project success or failure must be recognized.
2. A review: carbon markets, forests and development
To date, existing academic research on the architecture and application of REDD initiatives has focused
principally on the macrolevel mechanisms that determine and regulate carbon markets. Industry
research and debate has primarily focused on the technical aspects ofmeasurement, reporting and ver-
ificationmethodologies, and the concepts of carbon valuation, additionality, leakage and permanence
(Hall, 2008; Bond et al., 2009). Although this research has been vital in exploring and delineating the
technical boundaries of carbon forestry projects, researchers have largely neglected to directly analyse
how the new emerging carbon economy and its associated institutions are affecting the lives and liveli-
hoods of communities living within or around proposed or existing REDD project areas (Bass et al.,
2000; Huberman, 2007). Specifically with the exception of recent work carried out post mortem on
failed or failing REDD projects (Lawlor and Huberman, 2009, p. 273; Melick, 2010) there has been
little work to examine how the impacts and influences of locally situated institutions, relationships
and cultural contexts have obfuscated the translation of high-level REDD policy statements to grass-
roots reality. It is therefore an objective of this article to help rectify this imbalance in existing REDD
research by providing a detailed community-based case study of the impact of a proposed REDD+scheme, and to examine the feasibility of REDD+ delivering gains for both the climate and forest-dependent communities in PNG.
2.1. Carbon versus developmentA fixation on the economic technicalities of emissions reductions and on the commodification of
carbon has resulted in a comparative lack of attention to the practical implications of carbon forestry
for the livelihoods of the rural poor (Bass et al., 2000; Huberman, 2007; Cotula and Mayers, 2009).
Several authors have highlighted the value of ensuring that lessons from other development fields
are fully incorporated into REDD project development, and that Integrated Conservation and Devel-
opment Projects (ICDPs) in particular have valuable lessons learned to offer REDD developers
(Salafsky and Margoluis, 1999; Asquith et al., 2002; West, 2006; Huberman, 2007; Staddon, 2009;
Blom et al., 2010). ICDPs and REDD projects face similar hurdles; both attempt to balance a global
imperative (for long-term conservation gains or emissions reductions) with negative local impacts
(such as forgoing opportunities for exploitation or curtailing subsistence activities), by offering
other avenues for livelihoods improvements and development (Blom et al., 2010).
Blom et al. (2010) highlight familiar lessons from ICDPs that have relevance to REDD+ projectdevelopment: recognizing tradeoffs between conservation and development; designing adaptable
and flexible projects; ensuring community involvement at all stages; and ensuring national policies
support project activities. Emerging evidence from existing REDD projects (this article included)
suggests that these key lessons appear to have been largely discarded in the rush to develop carbon for-
estry projects, rather than being used as the starting point for REDD+ project design and implemen-tation (Asquith et al., 2002; Huberman, 2007, p. 8).
The imbalance of the academic literature dealing with the carbon versus the community perspec-
tives perhaps also indicates an underlying presupposition: that the importance of people (and of devel-
opment) in carbon markets is secondary to the over-riding aim of the emissions-driven mitigation of
118 Leggett and Lovell
2 11 M
climate change (Cotula and Mayers, 2009). Bumpus and Liverman (2008) suggest that this disparity
in the literature reflects a conflicting hierarchy of agendas behind carbon markets, which they label
as economic and ethical. Bumpus and Liverman (2008) argue that, under an economic agenda, it
is accepted that carbon markets can generate faster, cheaper and larger reductions in emissions
from halting deforestation and degradation in the developing world than are readily achievable
in the global north, and that the domination of this approach subsumes the potential sustainable
development and side benefits aspects of projects in poorer communities (the ethical agenda)
(Bumpus and Liverman, 2008, p. 148). Although the existence of a hierarchy of agendas is contested
(Mansfield and Boyd, 2007), others have highlighted that much of the research into REDD+ that isfunded by major multilateral donor agencies remains economically driven and carbon fixated, and
it is these multilateral institutions that remain the driving force behind much of the research and
practical development of carbon forestry (Lohmann, 2006; Hall, 2008). Indeed, these developments
have been at the expense of the ethical agenda, which emphasizes the potential pro-poor benefits
of carbon offsets, with sustainable development as a primary concern (Asquith et al., 2002; Liver-
man, 2004; Bumpus and Liverman, 2008; Hall, 2008; Combes Motel et al., 2009; Oestreicher
et al., 2009).
However, this imbalance now appears to be changing. An increasing number of scholars have begun
to explore the value of alternative and bottom-up perspectives of the carbon offsets debate (Corbera,
2005; Huberman, 2007; Ebeling andYasue, 2008;Hall, 2008). These contributions range froman exam-
ination of the place of ethics in carbonmarkets tomore specific concerns over the equitable implemen-
tation of REDD+ projects. Writers such as Bass et al. (2000) argue that carbon forestry mechanismsshould be driven by an ethical, not economic, imperative. They contend that the global north has
an ethical responsibility to address the sustainable development needs of the forest-dependent poor
in the global south, as it is the latter who have contributed least to anthropogenic climate change,
but who are most likely to suffer from the effects of climatic variation due to their reliance on
natural resources (Bass et al., 2000). Cotula and Mayers (2009) support this assertion, but move
beyond ethical justifications for pro-poor carbon forestry to highlight the practical benefits in inte-
grated project design. They contend that any solutions that focus on emissions reductions alone will
by definition fail to recognize the socio-ecological complexity of forestry in the developing world,
which is itself integral to the delivery and sustainability of those solutions (Cotula and Mayers,
2009, p. 6).
The links between findings from community-based REDD+ studies and those from the extensivedevelopment studies literature are clear: the integration of forests into carbon markets has much to
learn from a long history of development research, particularly on issues of natural resource manage-
ment in the global south (Huberman, 2007). In the remainder of this brief review of the literature, two
development issues that are of central importance to REDD+ are discussed: land tenure/carbon tenureand forest usage rights.
2.2. Land tenure and carbon tenureFor emissions reductions to be commodified as carbonoffsets, it is necessary to clarify the rights of own-
ership over the carbon resource (Bumpus and Liverman, 2008; Lovell, 2008; Cotula andMayers, 2009).
Defining land tenure, and more specifically carbon tenure, is therefore a vital issue for forest-
dependent peoples. The distinction between land tenure and carbon tenure is important, as even in
countries where the legal rights to land and/or forest are recognized under customary law, the legal
ownership of the carbon resource often either is claimed by the state or remains unclear. In short,
forest rights do not necessarily equate to carbon rights (Staddon, 2009). Without formalized and
Community perceptions of REDD+ 119
2 11 M
legal tenure of both land and carbon, there is grave concern that forest-dependent peoples will be
unable to access any of the benefits that are derived from involvement in REDD+ schemes (Hall,2008; Cotula and Mayers, 2009). This issue is particularly relevant as it is estimated that around 77%
of the worlds forest is owned by governments, and state ownership of the land predominates in the
majority of rainforest nations (White and Martin, 2002). Although recent studies have argued that
community forest ownership offers the best possible solution to both sequestering carbon and alleviat-
ing poverty (Chatterjee, 2009), this view can be criticized for its simplicity. Cotula and Mayers (2009)
argue that the stated level of government control of and access to forest resources often bears little
resemblance to reality, and that in fact local control of forests is increasing. Furthermore, forest-
dependent communities are not powerless actors in the management and development of their
resources: their actions can dictate the long-term success or failure of carbon forestry projects
(Cotula and Mayers, 2009; Oestreicher et al., 2009). REDD+ projects will require widespread commu-nity support throughout the timescale of the project to ensure that emissions reductions are derived
from reduced deforestation or degradation (Cotula and Mayers, 2009, p. 8; Howes, 2009; Oestreicher
et al., 2009).
However, perhaps more critically, forest ownership does not guarantee that benefits from carbon
offsets will reach communities. Even in countries where the vast majority of the lands and forests
are customarily owned (such as PNG), the government is still able to claim ownership of the carbon
resource (Howes, 2009; Melick, 2009, 2010; Shearman et al., 2009). Staddon (2009) predicts that com-
munity forestry projects in Nepal face a similar future. Although the Nepalese government currently
allows community forestry projects to keep the revenues from non-timber forest products, they are
likely to claim some degree of ownership over the carbon resource with the development of REDD+projects (Staddon, 2009). Similarly, forest-dependent people in Cameroon only have legal ownership
of the trees on their land that they themselves have planted, which allows the government to exploit
the REDD+ benefits from the majority of the forest estate (Cotula and Mayers, 2009). Although thesesituations remain open to negotiation, the rural poor have historically had little influence at national
or even provincial levels, and their lack of political awareness and lower levels of literacy have often
been exploited to their detriment (Brown and Corbera, 2003; Huberman, 2007; Cotula and Mayers,
2.3. Forest usage rights and REDD1In addition to land and carbon tenure, it is increasingly appreciated that traditional usage rights also
need recognition within carbon forestry schemes (Asquith et al., 2002). For example, although the
Noell Kempff Climate Action Project in Bolivia has been successful in generating incomes and employ-
ment, it has prevented local people from accessing forests within the project area (Asquith et al., 2002).
This has occurred in spite of the communitys right to small-scale exploitation and use of the natural
resources in this zone. Traditionally, communities have depended on hunting, logging and rubber col-
lection for sources of cash income and subsistence foods during difficult periods. Asquith et al. (2002)
therefore argue that the project has decreased the coping strategies available to the community in
the future, and that this may have a significant impact on future levels of poverty. Despite these
concerns there is still cause for optimism regarding the long-term impacts of the project for conser-
vation and livelihoods (Asquith et al., 2002; Huberman, 2007). In the case of the Noell Kempff
project, communities surrounding the protected area have never been dependent for their subsis-
tence on their forest activities. The introduction of the project had little impact on their agricultural
activities as most farms were outside the park area, and they were able to exploit new job opportu-
nities that arose from the park expansion and project development (Killeen and Schulenberg, 1998;
120 Leggett and Lovell
2 11 M
Brown et al., 2000; Asquith et al., 2002). However, communities that are entirely dependent on
shifting cultivation of the tropical forest for their subsistence may have fewer opportunities for
accessing alternative coping strategies to deal with the possible loss of their forest access rights,
or the loss of their land, as a result of REDD+ project development. This could have serious conse-quences for local livelihoods and levels of poverty (Smith and Scherr, 2002; Grieg-Gran, 2008; Smith
and Scherr, 2003). A search of the literature reveals that few practical REDD+ project design sol-utions that address potential conflict of this type have been proposed. Instead, the approaches
favoured by ICDPs are further analysed for the suitability of their application within the context
of a REDD+ project.One such approach that has been used in ICDPs is to compensate landowners whose usage rights of
their forest resources have been curtailed by forestry projects (Peters, 1998; Smith and Scherr, 2002;
Cotula and Mayers, 2009). This raises several issues. First, an assessment is needed as to the value of
compensation in replacing what has been lost (i.e. access to forest resources). For some forest-
dependent communities, cash payments could be utilized to purchase resources previously accessed
free, such as firewood or food. For others, cash payments may have little value due to distance from
markets or the lack of adequate replacement (e.g. it may be impossible to buy firewood or culturally
appropriate foods) (Peters, 1998; Bass et al., 2000). Second, access and usage rights to forest lands are
important for more than practical applications. Compensation may not be suitable when the loss of
cultural or spiritual links with the forest are at stake, or when people may be in danger of losing
traditional knowledge due to changes in forest uses (Sillitoe, 1999).
Alternative approaches may include encouraging local landowners to exploit different
subsistence strategies, such as horticulture, which may be carried out outside the boundaries of
the REDD+ project. Usage zones within project areas may allow the continuation of traditionalactivities within a limited area. Technical and capacity issues in the application of such alternative
livelihoods strategies notwithstanding, the adaptation or abandonment of subsistence strategies,
may not be culturally or socially acceptable (West, 2006). For some forest-dependent peoples,
shifting cultivation is not so much what they do, as who they are (Sillitoe, 1999). Furthermore,
the very concepts of land ownership and land boundaries are culturally relative land use and land
rights for some forest-dependent peoples are transient and not subject to simple classification (Sillitoe,
1999, p. 331).
The seemingly straightforward act of drawing boundaries and setting unfamiliar temporal and
spatial rules to demarcate a REDD+ project could therefore have wide-reaching socio-cultural ramifi-cations for landowning communities, which may not be fully understood by either the project propo-
nents or the project recipients. Any limitations posed by REDD+ projects may therefore directlydamage social identity, as well as the economic and ecological coping strategies of forest-dependent
peoples. However, it is important to highlight that little has been done so far to assess the practical rea-
lities of such compromises for forest-dependent peoples at a project level.
3. Project background
The April-Salomei Forest Management Area (FMA) is located in the forests of the Hunstein Range, one
of the largest undisturbed tracts of lowland rainforest in PNG. Villages in this area are extremely
remote, and basic government services are largely absent. The subsistence economy of the region
relies heavily on hunting and gathering, and the shifting cultivation of hand-cleared forest areas, or
gardens. While crops such as banana, taro, and sago are abundant, the inaccessibility of markets
has barred most individuals from involvement in the cash economy. The development of a REDD+
Community perceptions of REDD+ 121
2 11 M
project within the FMA therefore represented a potentially valuable income source that could catalyse
community-level development in the region, while providing significant emissions abatement poten-
tial by preventing logging in the region.
In June 2008, the PNG OCCES entered a partnership with EarthSky Ltd to finance the development
of an avoided deforestation REDD+ project within the boundaries of the April-Salomei FMA, an area,that the government had previously offered, without success, as a logging concession since 1996. The
project claimed to have the written support of 163 Incorporated Landowning Groups (ILGs)1 from the
region, and the Prime Minister, Sir Michael Somare. The stated goals of the April-Salomei Sustainable
Forestry Project were to ensure an annual reduction of 1million tons of CO2 emissions, to protect and
conserve the April-Salomei forest area and its species, to develop the sustainable livelihoods of the local
people, and to provide sustainably produced logs through native species forest plantations (South Pole,
2009, p. 4). Emissions reductions were to be generated both by ensuring that the FMA was not
developed as a logging concession and through some limited application of plantation forestry
(South Pole, 2009).
A Swiss company, South Pole Carbon Asset Management (referred to hereafter as South Pole), was
contracted to complete the project design tomeet the criteria of the Voluntary Carbon Standard (VCS),
and the Climate, Community and Biodiversity Alliance standard (CCBA) (CCBA, 2008). In September
2008 the OCCES also officially recognized the right of the landowner company Hunstein Range Hold-
ings to act on behalf of the Landowners to produce and sell carbon credits in the FMA inApril-Salomei
The field-based research was conducted by the first author between May and July 2009, with time
divided between Port Moresby and four communities on the April River in the Hunstein Range, East
Sepik Province. The communities where the fieldwork was conducted were Niksek (also known as
Paka), Bukapuki, Kagiru andWagu, with themajority of the time spent in the community of Bukapuki.
Village members from Bitara were also interviewed. During the fieldwork a research assistant from the
local area (a member of Bukapuki village) was also employed to assist with language translation and
local orientation (see Figure 1).
The Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) framework and the Participant Observation (PO) approach
formed themethodological basis of the fieldwork (after Chambers, 1994). The centrality of landowner
participation and the key principles of direct learning and analysis from local people offsetting
biases, triangulating data, and sharing and practising critical self-awareness made these approaches
particularly suited for work in rural Melanesia, where village politics are largely egalitarian, inclusive
and participatory (Chatterton and Waliawi, 1991, p. 6; Chambers, 1994). Within this framework, a
series of tools was used to elicit further information. These included focus groups and semi-structured
interviews (conducted in the local language), participatory mapping, transect walks and preference
ranking exercises (Table 1).
By cross-referencing the information gained from these sources, the data were collected to show the
distribution of community and natural resources, the location and size of garden areas, community
population size and the demarcation of clan and community boundaries. The data were plotted
onto detailedmaps created through cross-referencing GPS coordinates, satellitemaps and information
from community informants.
Several limitations with the selectedmethodology were encountered. In the early stages of the field-
work, the use of interviews was abandoned in favour of less structured focus groups after it was found
122 Leggett and Lovell
2 11 M
that respondents were unwilling to provide answers to research questions, with personal opinions and
views being rarely, if ever, stated in public, and community consensus sought by respondents at every
stage (see Chatterton and Waliawi, 1991; Sillitoe, 1999). While the cultural suitability of structured
interviews was therefore questionable, the situation was exacerbated as the selected interview ques-
tions had overestimated the existing knowledge of respondents as to the REDD+ project. It thereforebecame clear that in order to understand the community perspectives onREDD+ and carbon forestry itwas first essential to give the villagers an understanding of those terms, while ensuring that any biases
did not preemptively influence the responses collected.
Unfortunately, it also proved extremely difficult to access the views and opinions of women during
the fieldwork. Fewer women spoke Tok Pisin (the lingua franca),making language translationmore of a
barrier thanwithmen, and as awhite,male researcher, interview access towomenwas culturally tambu
(forbidden). However, although focus groups were conducted predominantly with the male heads of
households of the community, women were regularly present (often in an adjacent building) and
were able to make comments and ask questions (although it was difficult to ask direct questions in
return). Every effort was made to account for this bias wherever possible, but there remains consider-
able value in assessing the importance of women in traditional landmanagement in relation to carbon
FIGURE 1 The April-Salomei Sustainable Forestry Management Project, Hunstein Range, East Sepik Province. Papua NewGuinea
Community perceptions of REDD+ 123
2 11 M
5. Results and analysis
5.1. Lack of community awareness and knowledge of REDDThe research findings highlight that there was a considerable lack of awareness and understanding of
the April-Salomei project among communities in the region. A consultation visit by the project devel-
oper to the communities of theApril River was conducted inMay 2009, sixmonths after the projectwas
officially ratified by the Government as a REDD+ pilot project. The consultation was conducted by alocal organization, contracted by South Pole and the OCCES, and was intended to contribute towards
satisfying the requirements for stakeholder consultation stipulated by the VCS and the CCBA.
The CCBA requires project proponents to inform and engage broadly with all community groups and
other stakeholders using socially and culturally appropriate methods. Stakeholders . . . must have on
TABLE 1 Summary of research methodology
Method Outcomes Data collected
Four community maps constructed by community
members of Kagiru, Wagu and Niksek, with a
detailed map constructed of Bukabuki
Community boundaries, land uses, garden sizes and
location mapped and geo-referenced; data overlaid
onto regional satellite maps; Bukabuki used as principal
Conducted at least twice in each of the four
communities with different informants to gain
a variety of perspectives on community issues
Data on community population and distribution, land
tenure, garden size, land conflicts and vulnerabilities
collected; data were geo-referenced then
cross-referenced with participatory maps and satellite
Interviews Formal interviews conducted with: Office for Climate
Change and Environmental Sustainability; Dept of
Environment and Conservation; Papua New Guinea
Forestry Authority; Provincial Government East Sepik
Province; WWF; Greenpeace
Interviews conducted in Port Moresby and Wewak, and
recorded and transcribed in English
Two focus groups conducted in Wagu, one in Niksek
and three in Bukabuki during period, plus several
informal group sessions; participants from each
household were engaged in each focus group, and
where possible women were involved; focus groups
were conducted largely in Tok Pisin or the local language
Focus groups were the foundation of the participatory
mapping exercises, and the principal forum for
discussing research aims and objectives, and for
framing questions; data from the mapping/transect walk
exercises were also cross-referenced here in group
discussions; all focus groups were recorded, translated
(where appropriate) and transcribed
One preference ranking exercise in each of the four
communities to clarify the positives/negatives and
benefits/drawbacks of the project; representatives from
each household provided comments on the pros and
cons of involvement in the REDD project; the factors
identified were then ranked according to community
Results from neighbouring villages compared
discussion initiated over the similarities and/or
differences with other communitys ranking of factors;
this method gave insight into the community awareness,
understanding and willingness to be involved with the
124 Leggett and Lovell
2 11 M
opportunity to evaluate impacts and raise concerns about potential negative impacts, express desired
outcomes and provide input on the project design, both before the project design is finalized and
during implementation. (CCBA, 2008, p. 7)
However, interviews with the communities carried out one month after the consultation exercise
revealed that it had fallen significantly short ofmeeting the criteria for either standard. The complaints
were numerous: the consultation time period was unfeasibly short (it lasted only four days); the team
gave no prior warning of their visit so key landowners were not present; and project questionnaires
were distributed in English and Tok Pisin but, due to very low levels of literacy in either language,
few were completed. Several statements taken from landowners also indicate that there was a degree
of borderline coercion in the behaviour of the visiting team in order to ensure that a positive view of
the project was presented, with negative opinions or questions being ignored or dismissed, and
video cameras switched off when villagers expressed concerns. Communities were told they would
receive millions of Kina within the year (over US$1million), and that projects would be everlasting
(South Pole Consultation Report, 2009, p. 20). Several landowners were also told they could
abandon their subsistence gardens once the project had started.
The level of consultationwas so poor that at the time of this study themajority of respondents on the
April River had no understanding of REDD+, nor of their responsibilities as landowners under aREDD+ project. Indeed it was a commonly held belief that the project would generate money monibilong skai (money from the sky) or for nothing, that is, without any work.
A: Em tok Mipela no laik harim wari, sampela askim 0 tingling nogut tru long carbon trade, mipela
kamap long pIes long harim gutpela tingting long carbon trade tasol.
They said, We are not here to hear your worries, your questions or negative thoughts, we want to
hear only positive things about the project. (Villager, Wagu)
B: Yu tok save long mipela. Dispela projek, wanem kain paip 0 narapela kain samting mas kamap long
kisim na bungim win bilong mipela? Dispela lain South Pole, em ikamap long pIes na bildim wanpela
haus bilong win? 0 mipela mas kisim win long plastic na go longWewak longem 0 wonem? Mipela no
save. Mi tingting em bigpela wok . . .
You tell us. What kind of pipes or other things do we need to collect the carbon? Will this company
South Pole comehere and build a factory to collect the carbon?Or doweneed to collect it in plastic bags
and go to Wewak or what? We dont understand. It sounds like hard work . . . . (Anonymous, Niksek)
C: Longwedispelawin i kamup? I kamup long graunnabus bilongmipela. Sapos lain bilong SouthPole
I kam na rausim bus, na buggerim risos bilong mi, na stealim win bilong mi, mi gat plenty wari. Em
kaikai win bilong mipela, pikinini bilong mipela em go dai pinis - em brit wonem?
Where does this wind (carbon) come from? It comes from the ground and the forest belonging to us.
If South Pole come here and destroy our forest and our resources and steal our air Im really worried. If
they eat up our air, our children are going to die - what will they breathe? (Anonymous, Bukapuki)
Additionally, several key clans did not even realize that their lands fell within the stipulated project
area, and claimed that their signatures on the original FMA document were forged. The study findings
further indicate that the April-Salomei project area was not a discrete zone around which a line could
be drawn. Rather, the project area comprised a complex mosaic of land with different social and legal
statuses, the boundaries of which were open to negotiation and variation over space and time, both
Community perceptions of REDD+ 125
2 11 M
within and between tok ples (literally, talk place/language group) boundaries. Respondents indicated
that the complexities in untangling land issues in the regionwould be enormous, and the impact of the
REDD+ project on these existing tensions would be considerable. The majority of respondentsexpressed a deep concern that the project would bring an increase in inter- and intra-community
conflict, as different groups would struggle to redefine land boundaries to maximize project benefits
to their clan, and outsiders would flood the region claiming distant kinship ties in order to claim
project benefits. The practice of delineating boundaries and formalizing ownership of land areas in
PNG has certainly not met with great success in the past (see Power, 2008; for an overview, see McCal-
lum and Sekhran, 1997).
Little care seems to have been taken to ensure the free, prior and informed consent of landowners in
the signing of the original FMA agreement in 1996. Despite this, the government intention was to
transfer the legal obligations of that document, signed by poorly informed landowners expecting
involvement in commercial logging, to the development of a REDD+ project without a renegotiationbeing considered. The Government of PNG has a strong legal and ethical responsibility to ensure that
project participants have a good understanding of the project in question, are aware of their roles,
responsibilities and risks in being involved, and are given the option to reject the agreement if necess-
ary. However, despite all of these critical issues the OCCES continued to publicly describe the April-
Salomei project as follows:
a pilot REDD Voluntary project. . . set up with the mutual consent of and in consultation with all the
Landowners. All Leaders of the area have been consulted. There has been complete transparency and
accountability on this project at all stages. (Acting Executive Director, OCCES, 23 July 2009)
5.2. Elite captureFor REDD+ to successfully contribute towards sustainable development efforts, and for the effectivesupport of REDD+ development by indigenous landowners, the benefits that derive from theproject must reach those landowners (Huberman, 2007). It is clear that the lack of understanding of
REDD+ and carbon forestry not only acted as a key barrier to community participation in theprocess of project development, but also inhibited their capacity to position themselves to exploit
any future potential project benefits.
In PNG, obtaining legal recognition of clans and community rights to land management is only
possible through the registration of Incorporated Landowner Groups and Landowner Companies.
This costly, complex and laborious process can only be carried out in Port Moresby, and is therefore
often undertaken by educated community members or elected representatives, who speak for the
clan or community in absentia (the landowner company for the April-Salomei is Hunstein Range Hold-
ings Ltd). However, the institutional arrangements of the system are such they that can be easily
exploited by individuals seeking to profit from their position of relative power, and their access to gov-
ernment workers and ministers, an issue that has been a critical hurdle to numerous other develop-
ment and resource projects in PNG (McCallum and Sekhran, 1997; Power, 2008).
Although Hunstein Range Holdings Ltd was recognized by the OCCES as the official representative
body for the communities of the April-Salomei project area, the research findings revealed that the
company had been strongly and repeatedly rejected by April-Salomei communities, and had never
obtained permission to act as their representatives. Landowners were also concerned about serious cor-
ruption allegations, and argued that key board members were not from the Hunstein Range, as was
claimed. As a result, communities were adamant that the involvement of Hunstein Range Holdings
Ltd would ensure they would not benefit from the REDD+ project.
126 Leggett and Lovell
2 11 M
The benefits distribution systemdescribed by the project design can also be criticized for its failure to
consider issues of elite capture. According to the design document, project revenue would be distribu-
ted in the following proportions: 18% to the Government of PNG; 2% to a climate emergency response
fund; and 80% to a new body, the April-Salomei Foundation, to which landowners would apply for
community project funding for activities such as crocodile farming and ecotourism initiatives.
Several key concerns with this proposed regime were identified. First, the April-Salomei Foundation
(and by default the landowners) would receive 80% of the net credit sales only after the deduction of
the project development costs, which, given the complexities of implementation and consultations,
were likely to be very high. Without safeguards to protect their revenue, the indigenous landowners
could ultimately receive very little revenue from the project. Second, Hunstein Range Holdings Ltd
board members also controlled the April-Salomei Foundation, effectively enabling them to act as
the gatekeepers of 80% of project revenues and also allowing them to decide where and how commu-
nity projects would be funded. Third, the use of a formal application process for communities to source
project funds for development work is also likely to benefit existing educated elites, which could
further exclude the poorest and least literate landowners from accessing project funds. Fourth, the
absence of cash payments to landowners can be considered inequitable given the potential impact
of project restrictions on subsistence farming activities (see Section 5.3). Although development pro-
jects that improve health or education may offer one source of security, the provision of these services
should ultimately be provided by the state and integrated into local and provincial government strat-
egies (which thus far have failed to provide or sustain these basic services in rural areas). There is there-
fore a danger that REDD+ projects in rural regions provide no financial or service additionality for thecommunities involved beyond what should already exist, and that at the end of the project lifecycle,
dependent communities find themselves in worse circumstances once this service support is with-
drawn. Small part payments of cash to landowners throughout the project would at least reflect the
work, and the risk, that landowners undertake through their involvement, and by allowing parallel
developments in micro-businesses and other enterprises ameliorate the danger of total collapse once
the project ends.
5.3. The impact of subsistence livelihoodsThe April-Salomei project design document states that Fuel wood collection, agricultural and grazing
activities have a very minor impact on land cover change (within a radius of less than 1 km from any
settlements) (South Pole, 2009, Section 2.2, p. 16). The impact of subsistence activities on emissions
from land-use change was therefore considered to be minimal within the project design document.
In order to test this statement the subsistence strategies of Bukapuki village were examined in detail.
A total of 44 gardens were surveyed for size and location. Although over 86% of the gardens surveyed
were smaller than 1 hectare (ha), and of this number, 47.7% were within 2 km of the village, gardens
over 1 ha in size were also found up to 16 km from the village at the boundaries of their land. The land
area managed by Bukapuki village clans measured approximately 22,647 ha (although limited data
plots suggest that this may be a conservative estimate), and the average land area used per capita is
estimated at 0.5 ha (Figure 2).
The cumulative forest area utilized by Bukapuki over the project cycle of 36 years, based on a
moderately low population growth of 2.7% and a per capita forest usage rate of 0.5 ha, is therefore
over 8000 ha (Figure 3). However, this requires calibration to include land unsuitable for cultivation
(e.g. due to distance from the community, permanent/seasonal flooding or poor soil quality) and to
account for the decreasing fertility and shortening fallow period of land close to community centres
due to population pressure. Focus group respondents also agreed that new garden sites were preferred
Community perceptions of REDD+ 127
2 11 M
for clearance over areas that had been previously farmed, even though they were harder to clear. If it is
therefore assumed that only 50%of the gardens under cultivation are re-used each year throughout the
36-year project cycle, the cumulative total area cultivated (based on a 2.7% population growth and
0.5 ha per capita) reaches 4462 ha, 19.7% of the estimated total land area managed by Bukapuki.
The existing project design document assumes that there are 38 settlements within the project
boundary. If each of these settlements utilizes an equivalent amount of land to Bukapuki over the
project lifecycle, the total area of land that may be impacted by subsistence agriculture within the
FIGURE 2 Garden Distribution, Bukapuki Village
FIGURE 3 Projected land use change and population increase in the AprilRiver
128 Leggett and Lovell
2 11 M
project boundary could equate to over 218,000 ha, over 64% of the total land area (341,110 ha) of the
pilot REDD + site (Figure 3).Although further detailed research is clearly required tomore accurately calibrate these projections,
this high rate of forest usage suggests that carbon stocks within the project area may be less than orig-
inally estimated, and the potential for emissions reductions (and therefore the quantity of carbon
credits) that can be claimed as deriving from the project subsequently lower than predicted in the
project design document. This article does not claim that forest used for traditional cultivation will
never recover carbon stocks after initial harvesting, nor that subsistence practices permanently
degrade forest land (Filer et al., 2009; Fox et al., 2010). However, the rapid increase of population
over time within the project area will undoubtedly increase the impact of subsistence agriculture on
the forest area utilized by communities, and in some cases it seems likely that this will lead to perma-
nent degradation, which has not been accounted for within the project design (for supporting argu-
ments see Shearman et al., 2009 for supporting arguments). It therefore seems highly likely that the
continuation of normal subsistence activities is incompatible with the current project design and
that this critical element of the project, and its implications, have not been adequately addressed.
Carbon forestry markets hold great promise for the landowners of PNG. The nations high percentage
of customary land ownership, and an existing framework for the recognition of land tenure, should
place PNG in an excellent position to take advantage of the benefits that the VCOs and future compli-
ancemarkets have to offer. However, despite PNGs opportunity to demonstrate best-practice REDD+through utilizing their strong customary land tenure laws, the rights and natural capital of the poorest
communities are in danger of being usurped on their behalf, and without their permission, by other
interests bent on the exploitation of social inequities for potential financial gain from carbon forestry.
The findings of this research support the work of Brown and Corbera (2003), Corbera (2005) and
Bumpus and Liverman (2008) in illustrating the critical nature of formal and informal institutions
in determining the access of communities to benefits from carbon forestry. However, in PNG at
least, these institutions reflect only the motives and interests of individual agents within them. In
PNG, the OCCES, Hunstein Range Holdings Ltd and EarthSky Ltd have all played a critical role in
restricting (either actively or by their failure to act) community participation in the April-Salomei
project. Landowners have been intentionally excluded from the process by design in the scramble to
secure the maximum financial benefits possible from a burgeoning potential carbon market.
The failure of the Government of PNG to implement legal frameworks to guide the development of
carbon forestry projects has resulted in wholesale confusion in the private sector, and within commu-
nities, as to where and how REDD+ projects can be legally developed in PNG, and has also damagedPNGs international reputation in this field (Melick, 2010). Under the initial project design assessed
in this analysis, which has not been implemented at the time of writing, few benefits generated by
the April-Salomei project would have reached the communities in the region. Instead, landowners
and their livelihoods would have been subject to a project that they had no hand in designing,
would play no part in managing, and did not understand.
Although the research findings highlight that numerous significant issues threaten the equitable
development of REDD+ projects in PNG, they also demonstrate that the problems faced are notintractable. In tackling these problems theGovernment of PNG, and the governments of other rainfor-
est nations,must heed the lessons frompast projects, such as ICDPs, when planning REDD+ initiatives(MaCallum and Sekhran, 1997; Blom et al., 2010). A failure to heed these lessons will again ensure that
Community perceptions of REDD+ 129
2 11 M
the indigenous inhabitants and rightful landowners within PNG remain at the losing side of any deal
that purports to be their saviour.
On the basis of the findings of this study, six recommendations for the future development of
REDD+ projects in PNG, and in other rainforest nations, are offered. First, the issue of carbontenure is critical, and must be made explicit: community ownership of the forest must equate to com-
munity ownership of the carbon resource so that indigenous landowners are empowered to equitably
benefit from carbon forestry projects. The Government of PNGhas yet to clarify who actually owns the
carbon in the forest.
Second, comprehensive community consultations and verification exercises conducted by indepen-
dent and competent consultants prior to pilot site designation are required to ensure that landowners
can give free, prior and informed consent to REDD+ project development at the earliest stages, and tocombat poor rural awareness and understanding of REDD+. This kind of consultation must acceptresponsibility for providing communities with a broad understanding of the impacts of climate
change within the community context rather than focusing primarily on the possible income from
carbon forestry, which has served only to raise expectations to an unrealistic level in the past.
Additionally, the research here demonstrates that ensuring competent and fully independent pro-
cesses of consultation and verification in countries like PNG is highly complex. This is inadequately
recognized by standard bearers such as the VCS and CCBA. Many of the individuals with the required
expertise and local knowledge of an area will inevitably be intertwined in local and national politics.
While the layers of sub-contracts and sub-sub-contracts that separate organizations such as the VCS
and CCBA from the groups tasked with on-the-ground verification can give the appearance of compe-
tent independence, they can conceal both vested interests and poor practice.
Third, REDD+ project designs must include comprehensive land boundary mapping to the level ofthe clan within the project area, and use detailed genealogical studies of individuals to establish true
ownership of land prior to the completion of the project design. This will help to ameliorate the
impacts of false land claims, elite capture, misrepresentation by landowner companies, and land-
related conflicts. Although in PNG the inclusion of this work is already a stipulation under the existing
LandGroups Incorporation Act, this is rarely enforced and is never externally verified. The high cost of
conducting this work for REDD+ projects such as April-Salomei must therefore be quantified and fac-tored into project development costs at the earliest stages. Where this work is not carried out, commu-
nities will continue to be open to exploitation by educated elites who are able to reinforce existing
institutional biases and position themselves to secure project benefits.
Fourth, the impact of REDD+ projects on the subsistence economies of indigenous communitieswithin project areas must be analysed and accounted for within the project design across a range of
possible pilot site conditions in order to ensure that REDD+ fulfils its pro-poor obligations. It islikely that, under the current design, the April-Salomei REDD+ project will have a long-term deleter-ious affect on livelihoods and poverty in the region, either by limiting subsistence activities to certain
areas (which over time may produce lower crop yields or be more susceptible to flooding, thereby
increasing food insecurity), or by tying communities to contractual obligations (to alter their subsis-
tence activities to reduce forest degradation) that they would be unable to sustain. At worst, this
could result in financial penalties for contractual transgression, and at best it may ensure that the com-
munity income from REDD+ remains negligible.Fifth, the impact of these subsistence economies on expected carbon credits and potential income
streams from REDD+ projects must be more accurately modelled to account for population increasesand forest disturbances or degradation from shifting cultivation practices, as well as projected societal
changes over the length of the project. Project designs must account for these locally specific site
conditions and must be adaptable to the local context.
130 Leggett and Lovell
2 11 M
Sixth, and specific to PNG (although perhaps a relevant step for other rainforest nations), the
Government of PNG must demonstrate its international leadership on REDD+ by calling for a cessa-tion of carbon forestry project development while their institutional enabling conditions are
improved, carbon-specific legal frameworks put in place, and comprehensive landowner consultations
conducted in proposed project areas. The Government of PNG has nothing to gain from striving to
implement projects built upon such flawed foundations, despite the growing pressure upon them to
demonstrate progress to international donors. At best this approach will serve only as an expensive
reminder of the lessons learnt from previous resource development and conservation projects; at
worst it could be vastly damaging to their already sliding international reputation within this field
and therefore undermine any future plans for REDD+ development.In addition to voluntarily halting REDD+ project development, the Government of PNG should
commit to a complete cessation in industrial logging and a revocation of all unexploited logging
leases before REDD developments are pursued. This difficult but feasible step would ensure PNG is
able to generate large emissions reductions in line with their new national climate-compatible devel-
opment strategy, andwould demonstrate a bold commitment to the core principles of REDD+ that hasbeen ostensibly lacking to date. In addition, this would attract significant support and further invest-
ment from mechanisms such as UN-REDD for further project development at a crucial time. The
Government of PNG, despite remaining heavily involved with international REDD negotiations, is
currently failing to match its international rhetoric with national action, and has recently been
widely criticized for its failure to make commitments to the inclusion of stakeholder engagement
within ongoing REDD negotiations.
It is clear that linking carbon forestry projects to their sustainable development goals in PNG will
take years, not months. Since the completion of the initial study in 2009, the development of REDD
projects in PNG remains controversial, not least because the original OCCES was disbanded in late
2009 (under suspicions of corruption and issuance of false carbon credits) and was only recently
re-formed (in early 2010) as the Office for Climate Change and Development (for an overview see
Lang, 2009). In the meantime, voluntary carbon project developers have continued to operate in a
legal vacuum that has yet to be filled with clear policy or directed by political will, largely under the
radar of the Government of PNG. Despite a continued interest from project developers in the April-
Salomei project to date, the issues highlighted in this study remain largely unresolved.
Critically, the findings of this study re-emphasize that a failure to address the sustainable develop-
ment needs of forest-dependent communities will also result in a failure of efforts to reduce emissions
from tropical deforestation and degradation throughREDD+. The findings also question the feasibilityof the supposed social side benefits of REDD+, given the practical complexities, and associated costs, ofimplementation in the developing world.
This research was funded by the Natural Resources International Foundation under the 2009 Study
Fellowship Award, and the World Wide Fund for Nature, Western Melanesia. The author would like
to thank Dr David Melick, David Peter and Richard Yawingu at WWF Western Melanesia for their
invaluable direction and logistical coordination of the fieldwork, the Government of Papua New
Guinea, and Jim Robins at the National Research Institute for granting my research visa. He also
extends his sincere thanks to the communities of the Hunstein Range region (Wagu, Kagiru, Bitara,
Niksek and particularly Bukapuki), for their kind hospitality and their patience with his questions:
Tenkyu tru long halivim wok bilong mi na taim bilong yupela. Without their support the fieldwork
would have been impossible.
Community perceptions of REDD+ 131
2 11 M
1. Incorporated Land Groups are formed under the Government of Papua New Guineas Land Groups Incorpor-
ation Act, 1974, which gives legal status to indigenous landowning groups so that they are able to manage
the acquisition, use and disposal of their own customary land and regulate their internal affairs and disputes
in accordance with custom (Power, 2008).
Angelsen, A. (ed), 2008,Moving Ahead with REDD: Issues, Options and Implications, Center for International Forestry
Research (CIFOR), Bogor, Indonesia.
Asquith, N., Vargas Rios, M., Smith, J., 2002, Can forest protection carbon projects improve rural livelihoods?
Analysis of the Noell Kempff Mercado Climate Action Project, Bolivia, Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for
Global Change 7, 323337.
AusAID, 2009, Why we give aid to Papua NewGuinea, Commonwealth of Australia [available at www.ausaid.gov.
Bass, S., Dubois, O., Moura Costa, P., Pinard, M., Tipper, R., Wilson, C., 2000, Rural Livelihoods and Carbon Manage-
ment, Natural Resource Issues No. 2, International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED), London.
Blom, B., Sunderland, T.C.H.,Murdiyarso, D., 2010, Getting REDD towork locally: lessons learned from Integrated
Conservation and Development Projects, Environmental Science & Policy 13(2), 164172.
Bond, I., Grieg-Gran, M., Wertz-Kanounnikoff, S., Hazlewood, P., Wunder, S., Angelsen, A., 2009, Incentives to
Sustain Forest Ecosystem Services. A Review and Lessons for REDD, Natural Resource Issues No. 16, International
Institute for Environment and Development, London, UK, with CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia, andWorld Resources
Institute, Washington, DC, USA.
Brown, K., Corbera, E., 2003, Exploring equity and sustainable development in the new carbon economy, Climate
Policy 3(Supplement 1), S41S56.
Brown, S., Burnham,M., Delaney,M., Powell,M., Vaca, R., Moreno, A., 2000, Issues and challenges for forest-based
carbon-offset projects. A case study of the Noel Kempff climate action project in Bolivia, Mitigation and Adap-
tation Strategies for Global Change 5(1), 99121.
Bumpus, A., Liverman, D., 2008, Accumulation by decarbonization and the governance of carbon offsets,
Economic Geography 84(2), 127155.
CCBA, 2008, Climate, Community Biodiversity Project Design Standards, 2nd edn. [available at http://www.climate-
Chambers, R., 1994, Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA). Analysis of experience, World Development 22, 1253
Chatterjee, R., 2009, The road to REDD, Environmental Science and Technology 43(3), 557560.
Chatterton, P., Waliawi, D., 1991, The Hunstein Range: Integrating Enterprise, Culture and Conservation in the Upper
Sepik, Papua New Guinea, Friends of the Sepik, Wewak and London.
Combes Motel, P., Pirard, R., Combes, J., 2009, A methodology to estimate impacts of domestic policies on defor-
estation: compensated successful efforts for avoided deforestation (REDD), Ecological Economics 68, 680691.
Corbera, E., 2005, Bringing development into carbon forestry markets: challenges and outcomes of small scale
carbon forestry activities in Mexico, in: D. Murdiyarso, H. Herawati (eds), (2005) Carbon Forestry: Who Will
Benefit? Proceedings of Workshop on Carbon Sequestration and Sustainable Livelihoods, Centre for International
Forestry Research, CIFOR, Jakarta, 4256.
Cotula, L., Mayers, J., 2009, Tenure in REDD: Start Point or Afterthought?, Natural Resources Issues No. 15, Inter-
national Institute for Environment and Development, London.
Ebeling, J., Yasue, M., 2008, Generating carbon finance through avoided deforestation and its potential to create
climatic, conservation and human development benefits, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 363,
Filer, C., Keenan, R., Allen, B., Mcalpine, J.R., 2009, Deforestation and forest degradation in Papua New Guinea,
Annals of Forest Science 66, 813.
132 Leggett and Lovell
2 11 M
Fox, J.C., Yosi, C.S., Nimiago, P., Oavika, F., Pokana, J.N., Lavong, K., Keenan, R.J., 2010, Assessment of above-
ground carbon in primary and selectively harvested tropical forest in Papua New Guinea, Biotropica 42,
Grieg-Gran, M., 2008, Equity considerations and potential impacts on indigenous or poor forest-dependent com-
munities (DRAFT Background paper No. 9), CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia, IIED, London, UK, World Resources Insti-
tute, Washington DC, USA.
Hall, R., 2008, REDD Myths: A Critical Review of Proposed Mechanisms to Reduce Emissions from Deforestation and
Degradation in Developing Countries, Friends of the Earth International, Issue 114 (December 2008).
Howes, S., 2009, Cheap but not easy: the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from deforestation and forest
degradation in Papua New Guinea, Pacific Economic Bulletin 24(1), 130143.
Huberman, D., 2007,Making REDDWork for the Poor: The Socio-economic Implications ofMechanisms for Reducing
Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation, IUCN on behalf of the Poverty and Environment Partnership,
IPCC, 2007, Climate change 2007: Synthesis Report, Contribution ofWorking Groups I, II and III to the Fourth Assessment
Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate ChangeCoreWriting Team, R.K. Pachauri, A. Reisinger (eds), Inter-
governmental Panel on Climate Change, Geneva, Switzerland, IUCN, 2009.
IUCN, 2009 [available at www.iucn.org/about/union/secretariat/offices/oceania/] (accessed 6 August 2009).
Killeen, T.J., Schulenberg, T.S., 1998, A Biological Assessment of Parque Nacional Noel Kempff Mercado, Bolivia, RAP
Working Papers No. 10, Conservation International, Washington, DC.
Lang, C., 2009, PNG update: Yasause suspended, dodgy carbon credits and carbon rip-offs, REDD Monitor, 2 July
2009 [available at www.redd-monitor.org/2009/07/02/pngupdate-yasause-suspended-dodgy-carbon-credits-
Lawlor, K., Huberman, D., 2009, Reduced emissions fromdeforestation and forest degradation (REDD) and human
rights, in: J. Campese, T.C.H. Sunderland, T. Greiber, G. Oviedo (eds), Exploring Issues and Opportunities for Con-
servation, Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), Bogor, Indonesia, and The International Union for
Conservation of Nature (IUCN), Gland, Switzerland, 269286 [available at www.forestsclimatechange.org/
Liverman, D.M., 2004, Who governs, at what scale and at what price? Geography, environmental governance and
the commodification of nature, Annals of the Association of American Geographers 94(4), 734738.
Lohmann, L., 2006, Carbon Trading: A Critical Conversation on Climate Change, Privatization and Power, Mediaprint,
Lovell, H., 2008, The Ethics of Carbon Offsets, An international interdisciplinary conference, 1618 June 2008,
University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh [available at http://www.geos.ed.ac.uk/abs/MiomboConference/conference
document.pdf]. Carbon and Communities in Tropical Woodlands, 1618 June 2008.
Mansfield, M., Boyd, E., 2007, Commodifying Carbon: The Ethics of Markets in Nature, ECI Workshop Report,
16 July 2007, Environmental Change Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford [available at www.eci.ox.ac.uk/
McCallum, R., Sekhran, N., 1997, Race for the Rainforest: Evaluating Lessons for an Integrated Conservation and Devel-
opment Experiment in New Ireland, Papua New Guinea, Department of Environment and Conservation, Papua
New Guinea, and the United Nations Development Programme, Waigani, Papua New Guinea.
Melick, D., 2009, unpublished, A status report of the potential for forest carbon schemes to combat deforestation
and degradation in Papua New Guinea, personal communication.
Melick, D., 2010, Credibility of REDD and experiences from Papua NewGuinea,Conservation Biology 24, 359361.
OCCES, 2009, [available at http://climatepng.org/index/php?option=com_content&view=article&id=4:0cces-
Oestreicher, J.S., Benessaiah, K., Ruiz-Jaen,M.C., Sloan, S., Turner, K., Pelletier, J., Guay, B., Clark, K.E., Roche, D.G.,
Meiners, M., Potvin, C., 2009, Avoiding deforestation in Panamanian protected areas: an analysis of protection
effectiveness and implications for reducing emissions fromdeforestation and forest degradation,Global Environ-
mental Change 19, 279291.
Peters, J., 1998, Transforming the Integrated Conservation and Develoment Project (ICDP) approach. Obser-
vations from the Ranomafana National Park Project, Madagascar, Journal of Agricultural and Environmental
Ethics 11, 1747.
Community perceptions of REDD+ 133
2 11 M
Power, T., 2008,Making LandWorkVol. 1: Reconciling Customary Land andDevelopment in the Pacific, Commonwealth
of Australia [available at www.ausaid.gov.au/publications/pdf/MLW_VolumeOne_Bookmarked.pdf].
Salafsky, N., Margoluis, R., 1999, Threat reduction assessment. A practical and cost-effective approach to evaluat-
ing conservation and development projects, Conservation Biology 13, 830841.
Shearman, P.L., Bryan, J.E., Ash, J., Hunnam, P., Mackey, B., Lokes, B., 2008, The State of the Forests of Papua New
Guinea. Mapping the Extent and Condition of Forest Cover and Measuring the Drivers of Forest Change in the Period
19722002, University of Papua New Guinea, Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea.
Shearman, P.L., Ash, J., Mackey, B., Bryan, J.E., Lokes, B., 2009, Forest conversion and degradation in Papua New
Guinea 19722002, Biotropica 41, 379390.
Sillitoe, P., 1999, Beating the boundaries: land tenure and identity in the Papua New Guinea Highlands, Journal
of Anthropological Research 55(3), 331360.
Smith, J., Scherr, S.J., 2002, Forest Carbon and Local Livelihoods: Assessment of Opportunities and Policy Recommen-
dations, Occasional Paper No. 37, Centre for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), Bogor, Indonesia.
Smith, J., Scherr, S.J., 2003, Capturing the value of forest carbon for local livelihoods, World Development 31(2),
South Pole Carbon Asset Management, 2009, Project design document: April-Salomei Sustainable Forest Manage-
ment Project, 27 July 2009 (Version 1.0).
Staddon, S., 2009, Carbonfinancing andCommunity Forestry. A reviewof the questions, challenges and the case of
Nepal, Journal of Forest and Livelihood 8(1), 2532.
UNDP, 2009, Human Development Index, Papua New Guinea data from 2006, United Nations Development
Programme, New York [available at http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/].
UNFCCC, 1998, Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, United Nations, New
York [available at http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/kpeng.pdf].
UN-REDD, 2009, Operational guidance: engagement of indigenous peoples and other forest dependent commu-
nities, Working document, 25 June 2009 [available at www.un-redd.org/Portals/15/documents/events/
Wainwright, C., Wehrmeyer, W., 1998, Success in integrating conservation and development? A study from
Zambia, DICE, University of Kent, Canterbury, UK.
West, P., 2006, Conservation is Our Government Now: The Politics of Ecology in Papua New Guinea, Duke University
Press, Durham and London.
White, A., Martin, A., 2002,Who owns the Worlds Forests? Forest tenure and public forests in transition, Forest Trends,
Washington, DC [available at www.cbnrm.net/pdf/white_a_001_foresttenure.pdf].
WHO, 2007, PNG National Statistics, World Health Organisation [available at www.who.int/countries/png/en/].
World Resources Institute, 2009, Climate Analysis Indicators Tool (CAIT), Version 6.0 [available at http://cait.wri.org/].
134 Leggett and Lovell
2 11 M