There was progress this week on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD) as Parties met at two focus groups to discuss mitigation and financing mechanisms in relation to REDD,  but it remains to be seen whether it will be enough.  Several Parties requested last week for the Chair of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long Term Cooperative Action under the Convention (AWG-LCA) to establish a separate REDD negotiation track that would specifically discuss “policy approaches and positive incentives on issues relating to REDD”.   This request led to a REDD focus group under the mitigation contact group on Saturday followed by a focus group under the delivery contact group to discuss REDD financing mechanisms.  Whilst this is a step in the right direction, REDD proponents are still in a holding pattern as they wait expectantly for a separate REDD negotiation to be established for the remaining AWG-LCA meetings this year.  The Chair is expected to announce his decision on this issue before the next meeting of the AWG-LCA in June.

Accra was a long time ago
There has been ongoing concern that whilst the methodological discussions under the coinciding with the meeting of the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA) are already quite advanced they can go no further until policy negotiations get under way under AWG-LCA.  We have not had dedicated policy discussions on REDD since the third meeting of the AWG-LCA in Accra, Ghana in August 2008.  A workshop was held in Accra to discuss paragraph 1 b iii) of the Bali Action Plan which addresses “policy approaches and positive incentives on issues relating to reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries; and the role of conservation, sustainable management of forests and enhancement of forest carbon stocks in developing countries”.  Whilst this  workshop made much progress in the areas of mitigation, finance, reference levels, scale, capacity building and early action, it also highlighted several areas that required further discussion.  Since then REDD has been squeezed to the sidelines between the wider discussions on mitigation under the AWG-LCA.

Towards a Copenhagen agreement

It was a welcome sign then, when REDD negotiations started again on Saturday albeit only briefly in a one hour focus group under the mitigation contact group.  Papua New Guinea on behalf of the Coalition for Rainforest Nations summed up the feeling of many NGOs and Parties when they expressed their relief that AWG-LCA is taking up REDD+ again.  The Parties were invited by the Chair to present their views on why we need a separate negotiating space on REDD and why we can’t just discuss REDD under the existing mitigation contact groups.   The Chair also reminded Parties that the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) of the Kyoto Protocol was defined in just one page and the detail of a REDD mechanism could be unravelled in the ‘Marrakesh phase’ of the negotiations: after Copenhagen.  Whilst this is true, we should also learn from the lessons of the CDM in designing a mechanism that avoids perverse incentives and provides robust, additional emissions reductions that deliver core benefits to indigenous and local people and maximise ecosystems services.

The ‘specificity of REDD’

Parties attending the REDD focus group on Saturday sent a very clear signal that REDD was ‘special’ and merited its own space within the negotiations.  Interventions by Parties focussed around the following key elements:

• PNG highlighted that if REDD is 20% of the problem it should be 20% of the solution.  Panama and others also noted that we will not achieve a 2°°C target without REDD.
• Many Parties recognized the rights of Indigenous Peoples, the role of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the importance of free, prior and informed consent.
• The delivery of other co-benefits (or “core benefits” as they are becoming known) was identified as an important consideration along with the integration of these benefits into adequate monitoring, reporting and verification systems.
• Many Parties saw REDD as a national approach that could be part of Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs).  The Chair summarised this as important for addressing leakage.
• Norway, Japan and the CfRN - although they may disagree on the details – pointed out that REDD should follow a phased approach,  with a readiness and capacity-building phase, followed by a policies and measure phase, ending in a full implementation phase.
• The Chair along with many Parties highlighted the need for further discussions on positive incentives and financial mechanisms for REDD, although in his summary comments the Chair saw these discussions taking place under the existing contact group on “delivering on technology and financing, including consideration of institutional arrangements”.
• Norway saw the need for broad incorporation of all forest owning nations, not just those with historically high rates of deforestation.  This will be important in ensuring both an equitable REDD mechanism that minimises the perverse incentive to start chopping down trees, and to reduce the risk of international leakage.

The elements raised above are essential inclusions in a Copenhagen agreement.  We now need to elaborate upon these items to establish where there are areas of convergence and divergence among the Parties.
 
Towards a consensus on financing mechanisms
The REDD financing focus group today under the delivery contact group explored the different financing options for REDD.  Many Parties including Norway and the CfRN favour a flexible, phased approach on REDD.  This approach, which is elaborated in a recent report prepared by the Meridian Institute for the Government of Norway, aims to accommodate the varying country circumstances of different forest-owning nations.  The three phases as we highlighted above are:

• Phase I: Readiness and capacity-building
• Phase II: Implementation of policies and measures (PAMs)
• Phase III: Payment for performance.

There is general consensus among many Parties that these three phases should be funded through three complementary financing mechanisms; Phase I could be met by new and additional voluntary contributions from developed countries; Phase II would use a hybrid or market-linked mechanism; Phase III could be funded through either a market or a non-market based mechanism but emissions reductions could be used in a compliance mechanism.  The three phases collectively encourage progression towards a performance based implantation of REDD that generates monitorable, reportable and verifiable emissions reductions that can be used to meet Annex I emissions targets.

A clear signal from Bonn
As we stated before, if we are to reach a successful outcome on REDD in Copenhagen it is essential that we have a dedicated arena in which policy issues related to REDD can be discussed.  The focus group on Saturday and the discussions on financial mechanisms were the first step along that path and a positive sign that this deadlock between SBSTA and AWG-LCA might be lifted.  As one delegate pointed out, these focus groups have also been successful in two other ways; firstly, they have helped to raise the profile of REDD amongst the Parties - since these discussions have been held in open plenary instead of the status quo which has involved a handful of REDD experts in small workshops; and secondly, the REDD discussions have been informative for negotiators of other negotiation streams who recognise REDD as being more developed and therefore a good example to follow. 

The Chair is expected to make an announcement before this year’s second AWG-LCA meeting in June to indicate whether there will be a separate negotiation stream on REDD under the AWG-LCA.   This would be, to echo Peru’s words, a clear signal that we are on the right track to an agreement on REDD in Copenhagen.  In Bonn the Parties have begun charting a course to Copenhagen, it is now time for us to begin the task of filtering through the details of REDD to ensure, as Ghana stated, that “we reach not only an agreement on REDD but a good agreement on REDD”.

Tuesday April 7th, 2009 6:56 pm by Charlie Parker, Policy Analyst, Global Canopy Programme