REDD: A controversial mechanism

Gerardo Honty

25/09/2014

Opinión

^-A ⁺A

The origins of the concept REDD go back at least to 1990, when the energy company AES developed a project for conservation of native forests in Guatemala as a way to compensate part of their emissions. This was the first of a series of similar projects realized during the 1990s, financed for the main part by the United States, The Netherlands and Norway. Costa Rica was the first country to sell carbon certificates for the reduction of emissions due to deforestation in 1997.

The Convention on Climate Change engaged in a long discussion of the incorporation of forest conservation in developing countries, especially in the years of debate concerning the Clean Development Mechanism of the Kyoto Protocol, but in the end it was not accepted.

Nevertheless, even though it had not obtained official approval, many public and private entities took on the financing of “REDD” projects. The World Bank, the UN-REDD Programme and the voluntary carbon markets have transferred several billion dollars around the world for this kind of activity, even without approval by the Convention.

The Warsaw Framework

In 2005 the theme was reintroduced for discussion in the context of the Convention under the name: “Reducing emissions from deforestation in developing countries: approaches to stimulate action” (RED). After several years of debate, in December of 2013 the “Warsaw Framework for REDD+” was finally approved. This includes not only the reduction of emissions from Deforestation, but also from Forest Degradation, Conservation, the Sustainable Management of Forests and the Improvement of Forest Carbon Reserves (hence the acronym has changed from “RED” to “REDD+”.

With this decision one may say that the REDD+ mechanism has been “officially” approved. As a general framework, the agreement establishes basic guidelines, but still needs many adjustments and the adoption of many definitions that were left hanging.

The principal objective of this mechanism is – and always was – the transfer of resources from “developed” to “developing” countries, for the reduction of emissions of greenhouse gases resulting from the destruction of forests (and in addition, for the increase in forest land). However, the idea is – and always was – strongly resisted because it involves a number of components that are hard to resolve. For example, how are the indigenous peoples who live in forests considered, the risks involved in a carbon market, how to assess the value of benefits associated with the conservation of forests, etc.

Financing

One of the themes that leaves much to be resolved is the form and channels through which funds will be transferred. The results of the agreement can be resumed in the following manner:

1) The developing countries can receive funds for REDD+ activities once they have demonstrated the results obtained. That is to say, when the effective reduction of emissions (or the increase or conservation of forest carbon) has been established as a result of the various stages of measuring, notification and verification to be established. That is to say, there will be no advance financing.

2) Financing should be in addition to funds already existing under other mechanisms and foreseeable (the countries should know ahead of time the volume of funds involved and the time-lines for their delivery).

3) The financial resources can come from almost any source: private (companies, foundations, etc.), public (national or international resources of countries), bilateral (agreements between two countries), or multilateral (international institutions such as the UNFCCC, other UN agencies, the World Bank, etc.). There is talk of alternative sources such as a possible tax on international marine and air transport.

Various issues still await more specific resolutions. In particular, what are the financial engagements assumed by developed countries and how these are to be transferred. In addition, the question as to whether a carbon market (the sale of certificates of emission reduction) will be an allowable mechanism.

Requirements

Countries that hope to receive financial support for these activities must comply with a series of requirements. Among others, they must have in place a Forest Monitoring System; they must have established Levels of Reference according to which they can measure their achievements; supply Biennial Reports on these activities to the Convention and subject their data to a process of International Analysis and Consultation.

Some of the greater preoccupations concerning REDD+ activities are related to the possible negative social and environmental impacts that could result. For example: how will the rights of indigenous peoples be respected; how to ensure the conservation of natural forests in a framework of REDD+ activities that could include forest plantations; how to ensure that the deforestation that is avoided in one forest or a part of a forest does not happen in another place (a phenomenon known as “flights”); etc.

In an attempt to attack these problems, the Convention has agreed to a series of “safeguards” according to which the following elements, among others, “should” be promoted and supported:

a) Respect for the knowledge and the rights of indigenous peoples and members of local communities, taking into account the Declaration of the United Nations on the rights of indigenous peoples;

b) Full and effective participation of interested parties, in particular indigenous peoples and local communities;

c) The compatibility of measures taken for the conservation of natural forests and biological diversity, avoiding the conversion of natural forests into another kind of forest;

d) The adoption of measures to prevent the risks of reversion (permanence) and to reduce the displacement of emissions (flights).

Nevertheless, there are some considerations concerning national circumstances in each country that could weaken the application of safeguards. For example, if these threaten the objective of “poverty reduction”, or the “sustainable development goals” of the country, or if the funds needed for execution do not come through.

That is to say, countries that undertake activities of REDD+ should report on their action with respect to these safeguards, although there are no demands (at least up to the present) that oblige them to act in a particular way. In addition, these safeguards can be circumvented if the country decides that its “national circumstances” do not allow them to be respected.

The importance of a national decision

Beyond any agreements that might be reached in the Convention itself (and even independently from them) there are a number of issues involving REDD+ that will depend on the exclusive decisions of national governments. In fact, as has been noted, there are already REDD projects throughout the world, financed with international resources before any resolution on the part of the United Nations. The following are among the questions involved:

1) The participation in REDD+ of activities that generate tradable units of emission reductions (tradable carbon certificates). The country can choose not to undertake projects under this modality and instead to focus on options not based on the market. There is no decision that the CMNUCC could adopt that would oblige a country to accept this kind of project if it does not want to do so.

2) The decision concerning allowable activities. The country can decide which of the five kinds of activities admitted by REDD+ they want to develop. For example, they can undertake activities for forest Conservation but not accept those of Sustainable Forest Management.

3) Definition of “forest”. For the United Nations, the definition of a forest does not distinguish between natural forests and plantations. Nevertheless, each country can adopt the definition of a forest that it regards as most appropriate for their own plans. For example, they could leave mono-specific plantations out of this definition.

4) Social safeguards. The Warsaw Framework leaves it up to national governments to decide the way in which indigenous populations will be considered, along with questions relating to land tenure, gender issues, the participation of local peoples, etc. Because of this, the form of governance, mechanisms of participation and consultation, distribution of benefits and other related items are exclusively national decisions.

5) Anther decision left to the judgement of each country is the way their plans or strategies will consider the factors leading to deforestation or forest degradation. These include mining, road building, expansion of pasturage, among others.

Conclusions

The Warsaw Framework for REDD+ has established some general guidelines as a basis to start operating, but there are many important questions that remain unresolved, for example, the volume of resources to be supplied by developed countries and how these are to be delivered. Nevertheless it is important not to lose sight of the fact that a number of questions that are of concern for many actors in civil society and for governments will involve the exclusive decision of national governments. Hence a good part of the struggle to avoid undesirable problems involving REDD+ will take place within each country. For example, the participation in the carbon market (in the event that this is finally approved), the way in which the indigenous question is resolved, land tenure, the underlying causes of deforestation, etc., must be approached in this context. It is important to emphasize this, since often the discourse on REDD has been centred on international decision-making scenarios, which is important, but as we have seen, insufficient.

(Translated for ALAI by Jordan Bishop)

- Gerardo Honty is a researcher with the Centro Latino Americano de Ecología Social (CLAES)

This text is part of the ALAI’s Spanish language magazine América Latina en Movimiento, No. 498, September 2014, centred on the theme "Stop global warming” - http://alainet.org/publica/498.phtml

https://www.alainet.org/en/articulo/103700?language=es