Negotiations under the AWG-LCA on REDD+ began in earnest in Poznan in December 2008, when the group was invited to consider an Assembly document (FCCC/AWGLCA/2008/16/Rev.1) prepared by the Chair, Michael Zammit Cutajar.  This 120-page document, of which 7 pages were related to REDD+, was intended to represent the combined views of Parties and observer organisations on elements contained in Paragraph 1 of the Bali Action Plan. Parties spent very little time in Poznan negotiating the REDD+ text, however, with discussions primarily being held under the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA).

 

At the first meeting of the AWG-LCA in 2009, the Chair presented a consolidated Focus document (FCCC/AWGLCA/2009/4 (Part II)) as the basis for the policy negotiations. The Focus document was presented in two parts; Part I contained an explanatory introduction and overview, including suggestions for focusing the negotiations at AWG-LCA 5 and Part II contained a condensed version of the Assembly document, restructured in a manner that reflected the current organization of work of the group.

 

In what was perhaps the first oversight in the AWG-LCA process on REDD+, however, the Focus document didn’t contain a specific section on REDD+, an area of the negotiations that in hindsight became one of the key areas of discussion under the AWG-LCA. Instead, the document was arranged around the four pillars of the Bali Action Plan, namely:

The omission of REDD+ from the focus document and the lack of dedicated time to discuss REDD+ under the AWG-LCA process led to a series of meetings in Bonn in March to discuss the specificity of REDD and to determine if a separate contact group on REDD+ should be established under the AWG-LCA.  Although the Chair did not decide at AWG-LCA 5 whether a separate group would be created for REDD+, Parties sent a clear signal that such a group would be essential if there was to be a good outcome on REDD+ at Copenhagen.

 

At the second meeting of the AWG-LCA to be held in Bonn no real progress had yet been made on REDD+.  With a little over 6 months to go until a decision needed to be reached in Copenhagen this meeting should have been the starting point for REDD negotiations under the AWG-LCA. Instead, in perhaps the second flaw in the AWG-LCA process, Parties spent the first week reading through the text and the second week adding submissions to the text on items they felt had been missed out of the Chair’s summary document.  To save time during the “second reading” the Secretariat collected text submissions from Parties via email the evening before each plenary session. Whilst this process had the desired effect of saving considerable time for bilateral discussions, it meant that the neatly summarised 53-page Focus document that the Chair had prepared was re-inflated to over 300 pages with much duplication within the text.  Having such a large text as the basis for negotiations would only make the task of reaching something that resembles a legal agreement by December harder.

 

The third meeting of the AWG-LCA, labelled an “intersessional informal consultation”, had before it a 200-page revised negotiating text resulting from the sixth meeting of the AWG-LCA in June (FCCC/AWGLCA/2009/INF.1).  Several advances were made in the August intersessional in terms of REDD+.  Firstly, the negotiation text was revised to contain a specific section on REDD+ titled:

 

“Annex III C: 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”

 

after paragraph 1 b iii) of the Bali Action Plan.  The section on REDD+ was over 20 pages, however, and contained many duplications and contradictions. The second key advancement at the intersessional meeting in Bonn was the creation of an informal subgroup on REDD+.  The subgroup, chaired by Tony La Viña of the Philippines, met twice over the week in closed meetings to consolidate and improve the 20 pages on REDD+ within the revised negotiation text.

 

In perhaps the most productive meeting of the year, in Bangkok, Thailand, Parties began condensing the reordered negotiation text from Bonn (FCCC/AWGLCA/2009/INF.2) into something that could form the basis of a legal agreement in Copenhagen.  At the opening of the Bangkok meeting, the Chair of the AWG-LCA, Michael Zammit Cutajar, created 6 contact groups (see text on the “Structure of the UNFCCC negotiations”). In addition, the sub group on REDD+ continued to hold meetings under the guidance of Tony La Viña.

Parties in Bangkok had before them a series of Non-papers on REDD+ to consider. The first Non-paper to be released, Non-paper 11, on 3rd October, presented a revised version of Annex III C including some restructuring of the section on principles and safeguards.  The final Non-paper, Non-paper 18, released on 8th October contained revisions to the section on Institutional arrangements and some weakening of the safeguards, most notably around the exclusion of the safeguard against the conversion of natural forests.

 

Negotiations in Bangkok resumed the process of consolidation of the AWG-LCA text. The final Non-paper released in Bangkok, Non-paper 39 contained few revisions from the Non-paper presented in Thailand. The safeguard on natural forests was reinserted as well as language on sub-national versus national approaches, but otherwise very little progress was made in the final meeting of the year before Copenhagen.  The negotiations in Bangkok and Barcelona both failed to address key issues in the negotiation text around the sources of finance for REDD+ and questions over the final form of the agreement on REDD+. The rationale behind leaving these issues until last is that they would take up valuable negotiation time that could otherwise be spent making progress. But leaving these issues until Copenhagen places considerable strain on what will already be a difficult negotiation process. 

Saturday December 19, 2009 13:11pm by Charlie Parker, Policy Analyst, Global Canopy Programme