|
|
From Durban to Qatar: Outlook for REDD+ in 2012Feb 15, 2012 | Posted by Daniela Rey Tagged in: Forests |
|
Last year in Durban, the Parties to the United Nations Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) failed to provide significant additional clarity and positive incentives on issues relating to Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation (REDD) and the role of conservation, sustainable management of forests and enhancement of forest carbon stocks in developing countries. Let me first give you the context and a brief overview of what happened in the lead to Durban.
REDD+ stands for Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation. It is an international policy approach whereby developed countries pay developing countries to stop cutting down their forests and release the carbon the forests contain into the atmosphere, whilst also increasing forest cover and health.
REDD+ activities should not result in emissions reductions at the expense of biodiversity and the rights of local and forest dependent communities. Since the inception of REDD+, the international community has been rightly concerned about whether REDD+ will be implemented in a manner consistent with the protection of biodiversity and consistent with respecting human rights, in particular the rights of indigenous peoples and local forest-dependent communities. REDD+ activities that exclude participation by affected communities would ultimately prevent REDD+ activities from attaining their intended objectives. Therefore, efforts have been made by various States Parties and members of civil society to ensure that broader social, governance and environmental objectives are “safeguarded” when implementing REDD+ activities.
An important step to address these concerns was taken at the 2010 Conference of the Parties held in Cancun, Mexico. There, the State Parties agreed to a set of seven REDD+ safeguards and to the development of a system to report on how the REDD+ safeguards are being implemented when undertaking REDD+ activities. The seven REDD+ safeguards agreed in Cancun represent social, environmental and governance objectives. These have the potential to help REDD+ obtain emissions reductions, while also achieving multiple social and environmental benefits by ensuring protection of biodiversity and ecosystems, respecting the rights and interests of indigenous peoples and local communities, and improving forest governance. An effective Safeguard Information System (SIS) is essential to ensure the successful implementation of these REDD+ safeguards.
The meeting of the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA) in June 2011 requested Parties and Observers to provide their views on guidance for the SIS. These guidelines carry with them important implications for community participation in forest governance, respect for human rights and conservation. Leading up to the 2011 Conference of the Parties (COP) in Durban, Parties shared their views with regards to the design and guidance of a REDD+ SIS. Most of the submissions from Parties and Observers described in detail the types of information countries should be required to provide to the SIS, while also describing how this information should be collected. See our mapping of Parties and observers submissions to the UNFCCC for more detailed information on their views.
Unfortunately, the views and recommendations included in these submissions where not reflected in the Durban final text . The Durban text fell short in agreeing to effective guidance for ensuring the REDD+ safeguards and the Safeguard Information Systems (SIS) can be effectively implemented. The Durban text only agreed to certain characteristics of the SIS, which include being transparent, consistent, flexible, comprehensive (information to be provided should cover all safeguards), be country driven and implemented at national level (building on existing systems).
The text also agreed that to report on the safeguards Parties should include a summary of information on how all the safeguards are being addressed and respected and that this summary of information should be provided periodically and be included in national communications or communication channels agreed by the COP. The SBSTA at its May 2012 session is to determine the timing of the first and the frequency of subsequent presentations of the summary of information, and make a recommendation to the COP18 in Qatar. The implementation of this decision might be very problematic for countries seeking to develop a SIS and report on the safeguards as guidance is limited.
However, there is still hope that further guidance for the effective implementation of the SIS will be developed. The Durban text requested that the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA) in the May 2012 session consider “the need for further guidance” to ensure transparency, consistency, comprehensiveness and effectiveness when informing on how all safeguards are addressed and respected and if appropriate to consider additional guidance to be reported to the COP18. ClientEarth will be working to ensure the need for further guidance is agreed in the SBSTA 36th session and in providing constructive inputs to the development of such guidance.
More generally, the Durban text developed under the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long Term Cooperative Action (AWG-LCA) includes several decisions which may have implications for the implementation of the REDD+ safeguards and the SIS and for the development of further guidance on the REDD+ safeguards and the SIS.
Let’s examine more closely the other decisions in the AWG-LCA text:
Durban Decision relates to: |
Relevance to the REDD+ safeguards and SIS |
| Guidelines were adopted for the preparation of biennial update reports by developing country Parties (more specifically, for Non-Annex I Parties). |
How to report on the safeguards |
| Registry of developing countries mitigation actions seeking international support | The information that can be included in the registry to seek international support, could include information on the safeguards and SIS In COP16 Parties decided to set up a registry to record nationally appropriate mitigation actions seeking international support, to facilitate the matching of financial, technical and capacity building support. |
| International consultation and analysis (ICA) of biennial update reports from developing countries |
International review of information on how safeguards are addressed and respected As the COP still needs to decide on how to report on the safeguards (e.g. in national communications or communication channels agreed by the COP), if the COP decides that biennial reports by developing countries might be a channel, then the ICA would be applicable over the summary of information on that developing countries must submit over how the REDD+ safeguards are addressed and respected. |
| Results-based finance for REDD+ | Results-based actions include the safeguards implementation which can lead to results-based finance The Durban decision recalls that developing country Parties aiming to obtain and receive results-based finance must undertake results-based actions that can be fully measured, reported and verified and include elements referred to in paragraph 71 of the Cancun agreements. The elements include the development of a safeguard information system. Durban text agrees that regardless of the source or type of financing, REDD+ activities should be consistent with the safeguards. The Durban text also agrees that results-based finance may come from a wide variety of sources, including public, private, bilateral and multilateral. |
| Sources of finance: markets based approaches could be developed | Use of Markets must ensure safeguards are respected The Durban decision considers that market based approaches could be developed by the COP to support results based actions, ensuring that environmental integrity is preserved and the safeguards are fully respected. However, the decision also considers the development of joint mitigation and adaptation approaches as a non-market alternative that supports and strengthens governance, the application of the safeguards and the multiple functions of forests. The development of both approaches will be explored in 2012. It will be important to ensure the guidance. |
| Recognitions of relevant work undertaken by international conventions and agreements | Guidance on how to report on the safeguards
Durban decision also states the COP’ awareness of the relevance of work being undertaken by relevant international conventions and agreements. It will be important that this recognition is materialized in the guidance developed for the SIS, which should draw and take into account the relevant work undertaken by these international conventions and agreements. |
In conclusion, the text remains vague and open-ended regarding specific actions/decisions that could support the effective implementation of REDD+. In particular, many questions must be resolved and issues taken into account with regards to ensuring the effective implementation of REDD safeguards and safeguard information systems (SIS).
The text seems to indicate willingness among Parties to consider and develop various approaches for delivering incentives to achieve REDD+. While this willingness may present some challenges in the short term, we hope it may serve as an opportunity to examine the various approaches challenges and opportunities.
